Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE STUDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received information from the Chinese Government expressing their willingness for students to come to the universities in this country; and, if so, how many are coming and what arrangements are being made for their reception.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. The Chinese Government decided in September to allow all students holding Chinese or foreign scholarships to proceed abroad, as well as self-supporting students who have passed the Chinese Ministry of Education's qualifying examination.
Sixty post-graduate scholarships were offered last March by the British Council to students to be selected by the Chinese Government, who announced in October that they would select the students on the results of an examination to be held early in December. The British Council will be entirely responsible for the placing, reception and welfare of these students. Four students who have been selected for additional British Council Scholarships by His Majesty's Embassy in Chungking have left China in recent weeks. Thirty students were selected last February for scholarships awarded by the Board of Trustees for the Administration of the Boxer Indemnity Fund. I am informed that these students are likely to leave China for this country next

spring. The Universities China Comemittee will be responsible for their reception and general welfare.
I have no information to show whether the Chinese Government intend to send other students than these to British Universities. If they do, I am sure that the British Council will give full co-operation in arranging for their reception.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the Prime Minister, when he makes a statement in regard to the war situation, will mention the fighting between China and Japan?

Mr. Eden: I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about the Far Eastern war in general.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these scholarships will be eligible to Chinese women students as well as to men?

Mr. Eden: I would like notice of that question, but I think that the selection remains in the hands of the Chinese themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (SITUATION)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the political situation in Yugoslavia.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the present Government position in Yugoslavia.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Yugoslav political situation.

Mr. Eden: I would ask my hon. Friends to be good enough to await the statement on the political situation in Yugoslavia which will be made during the forthcoming debate on the war situation.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend have a translation of the Subasich-Tito Agreement published, as I do not think it has been published in this country?

Mr. Eden: I will gladly look into that matter and put it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it possible to say whether a statement will be made at a stage in the Debate which will make possible subsequent cross-examination?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will have full scope for all his talents.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA AND POLAND

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish as a White Paper the discussions carried on by the Strang Mission to Moscow in 1939.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Will not the Foreign Secretary reconsider his decision? Does he not think that the publication of this matter will enable people in this country to understand much more fully the position in Poland to-day?

Mr. Eden: I can hardly imagine a less helpful contribution than to raise again all the arguments about why agreement was not reached in 1939, at this moment when our Armies are jointly fighting the common enemy.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Soviet Government to the application of U.N.R.R.A. for permission to send relief to Poland.

Mr. Eden: I understand that negotiations about the transit of U.N.R.R.A. supplies to liberated Poland through Soviet territories are now proceeding between U.N.R.R.A. and the Soviet authorities.

Sir A. Knox: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of when these supplies will reach Poland? Poland has been more devastated than any other country in Europe.

Mr. Eden: I agree as regards the desirability, and negotiations have now begun, as I say. I regret I cannot say how long they will take.

Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman help the case by making representations to the Soviet Government?

Mr. Eden: I think this is a matter between U.N.R.R.A. and the Soviet Government, rather than a matter for myself, but

I will consider what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether permission has yet been given by the U.S.S.R. for a delegation from U.N.R.R.A. apart from the provision of supplies?

Mr. Eden: I think that is exactly the point now being discussed.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to an article in the "Soviet War News" of 8th January, issued by the Soviet Embassy in London, referring to the Polish Government in London as a flunkey of Hitlerite Germany; and whether he will represent to the Government of Soviet Russia that the publication of libellous statements regarding a Government which is recognised as the lawful Government of Poland by Britain and the U.S.A. does not contribute to good feeling among Allies.

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." His Majesty's Government must express their regret at the publication of such insinuations against an Allied Government which they recognise.

Sir A. Knox: Does not my right hon. Friend think it time that this sort of statement should be stopped, as the Polish Government have a cleaner record than the Government of any other country in Europe?

Mr. Eden: I rather thought that the House would feel that what I said was about right.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the numerous Polish newspapers published in London has ever contained a word in mild rebuke of the Soviet Union?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC REPUBLICS (STATUS)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what date His Majesty's Government received from the Ministers representing Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia formal declarations that the republics which they represented desired to maintain their independence and not become part of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Eden: The three Ministers referred to in the question made to His Majesty's Government communications expressing their views on the events which had just taken place in the Baltic States and expressing the hope that His Majesty's Government would not recognise the incorporation of those States in the Soviet Union. These communications were received upon 23rd July, 1940.

Sir A. Southby: Has my right hon. Friend read the statement made by the President of the United States to the effect that even the smallest nations have a right to their own independence; and is not this a case where we might apply the principles of the Atlantic Charter?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend asked when we received these representations and I have told him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (AFRICAN POSSESSIONS)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that Italy shall retain her pre-war possessions in Libya and Tripoli.

Mr. Eden: The future of Italy's pre-war possessions in Libya and Tripoli must await consideration by the United Nations at the conclusion of peace.

Sir A. Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend which Italian possessions in North Africa he had in mind when he made the statement on 28th July, 1944, that it was not the intention of the Allied Governments to return to Italy all of her North African possessions?

Mr. Eden: It seems to me that that was a pretty good statement, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is still our position.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend say what possessions he had in mind when he made it? That is what is really important.

Mr. Eden: I think the position is really clear. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the statement I made on 4th October, he will see quite clearly what the position was said to be. It is that the Italian Government have no right to the return of any one of their colonies. What is done about the colonies is a matter, in some part, for discussion in the future.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will Germany be allowed to keep either the Kiel Canal or Heligoland?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB STATES (CONFERENCE)

Major-General Sir Edward Spears: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now studied the resolutions of the Conference of Arab States at Alexandria; and whether he has any statement to make.

Mr. Eden: As the discussions in regard to Arab unity are continuing in Cairo in accordance with the provisions of the Alexandria Protocol, it would be premature for me to make any statement except to repeat what has been already made clear, namely that His Majesty's Government are watching with sympathy and interest the efforts of the Arab States to reduce the barriers between them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA AND LEBANON

Sir E. Spears: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which governments have recognised the sovereignty and independence of Syria and the Lebanon.

Mr. Eden: I will, with permission, circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir E. Spears: May I ask my right hon. Friend to be good enough to read the list, as it is a matter of interest to the House?

Mr. Eden: I have no objection, if it is of interest to the House.
The list is:

"Afghanistan.
Belgium.
Brazil.
Czechoslovakia.
Egypt.
France.
Iraq.
Persia.
Poland.
Saudi Arabia.
Transjordan.
United Kingdom.
U.S.A.
U.S.S.R."

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN TERRITORY (RUSSIA AND FRANCE)

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government was consulted


about the agreement reached between the Soviet and French Governments on the removal from Germany of the Ruhr, the Saar and the Rhine Valley as well as parts of Pomerania and Silesia; and what information he can give the House about this matter.

Mr. Eden: I am not aware that any agreement on this matter has been concluded between the Soviet and French Governments. The French Foreign Minister made it plain in his speech to the Consultative Assembly on December 21st that, while the subject was discussed at the time of General de Gaulle's visit to Moscow, it was one of common interest to all the Allies and could only be settled by common agreement between them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT (DISCUSSIONS)

Sir Oliver Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it was necessary for a representative of the U.S.A. to be present at the discussions between the representatives of the United Kingdom and Egyptian Governments in connection with the Anglo-Egyptian financial and economic agreement.

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. No representative of the United States of America was present at the discussions in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED COUNTRIES (FIGHTING FORCES)

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the urgent need for increased man-power in the fighting forces of the United Nations, he is in a position to report what steps the Allied Governments of the countries which have been freed of the enemy are taking to conscript their quota of men to swell the ranks of the armies of liberation.

Mr. Eden: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Allied Governments in question are taking all possible steps to this end and that His Majesty's Government are giving such assistance as lies in their power.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any escaped British prisoners of war are imprisoned in Spanish prisons at the present time.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

British Forces

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is now the intention of His Majesty's Government to use British troops and supplies against E.L.A.S. forces outside Attica.

Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend will be aware, a truce has now been signed between General Scobie and E.L.A.S. which will, I trust put an end to fighting between British troops and E.L.A.S. forces.

Mr. Strauss: While we all hope that that truce will put an end to all fighting, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the threats of General Plastiras to purge all Greece of E.L.A.S. elements, we can have an undertaking now, that neither British men nor British arms will be employed in such a way?

Mr. Eden: As I said a short while ago, there are wider issues and I must ask the House to await to-morrow's statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it unmistakably clear to General Plastiras that, if it is his intention, as has been stated, to clear the E.L.A.S. forces out of Greece and to destroy the E.L.A.S. forces, he will have to do it without any reliance upon British troops or British arms? Will he make that perfectly clear?

Mr. Eden: I will repeat what I said just now, that my right hon. Friend will make a statement on this whole situation to-morrow, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask the House to await it.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that unless some such declaration is made, he will meet, and his Government will meet, with the full hostility of Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Eden: Our position has been made absolutely clear in this matter and our position has not varied, is not varied and will not be varied—

Mr. Shinwell: It is not clear—

Mr. Eden: —whatever the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am calling the next Question.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the cessation of fighting in Athens, British Forces are now to be withdrawn from Greece and sent to other battle fronts.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no statement to make about the movements of British Forces.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say that the state of the war against Germany and the state of our man-power are such that we can afford at this juncture to tie up substantial forces in Greece?

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that there are substantial German Forces still on Greek territory?

Hon. Members: No.

Regent and Prime Minister (Powers)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any undertaking was given by His Majesty's Government to the King of the Hellenes in connection with his appointment of the Regency; and whether any military or other undertaking was given to the Regent or to General Plastiras in connection with their assumption of office.

Mr. Eden: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the reports, which are, I believe, current both in Athens and in this country, that before the Archbishop of Athens was appointed Regent undertakings were given to the King of the Hellenes that the powers which the Archbishop would exercise if he were made Regent would be in some way limited. I can give a complete assurance that these reports are unfounded. On the contrary, when the Prime Minister and I spoke to His Majesty on this matter we made it quite clear that in our view the Archbishop must be given a completely free

hand to deal with the situation as he saw fit. When the Archbishop assumed office as Regent he was assured that His Majesty's Government would support him to the full in his efforts to find a speedy solution to the conflict in Greece. He was also aware of our declared intention to restore order in Attica. Apart from this, no undertakings whether military or otherwise were given to him. When General Plastiras became Prime Minister he accepted office without making any previous conditions and no promises were made to him by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to tell us how giving the Regent a free hand to deal with the situation as he sees fit, coincides with the promise made here that no advantage would be taken of the situation in dealing with opponents? Is it not quite clear, from what the Archbishop and Plastiras have said, that they will take very savage action against the representatives of E.L.A.S.?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the recommendation we made in respect of the Regent was as a result of our conviction that the Archbishop was the best possible man to fulfil that difficult task. I may say that it was a recommendation which was strongly urged upon me from the benches opposite before the Recess.

National Forces (Arms and Equipment)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if arms and equipment are being supplied to the Greek Army by His Majesty's Government, and if he will give an assurance that no more arms and equipment will henceforth be sent for the Greek Army till the requirements of the French Army have been fully met.

Mr. Eden: Certain decisions have already been taken for the supply of arms and equipment to the Greek national forces, but the fulfilment of this commitment will not interfere with the supply of arms and equipment to the French army.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if that means that priority will be given to the supply of arms and equipment to the French Army? Does he not agree that, for the purpose of the war against Germany, arms and equipment supplied to the French Army are likely to be of more use?

Mr. Eden: That is if both commitments can be fulfilled.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not better that we should use British troops and British arms to win the war against Germany, rather than against Left-Wing forces in Greece?

Mr. Eden: I thought the hon. Gentleman shared with me the pleasure that there was a truce in Greece.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the War Cabinet in this country had its attention concentrated on Greece, when Rundstedt was making his offensive in the West?

Trade Union Leaders (Representations)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information on the representations of Greek trades union leaders to His Majesty's Ambassador to Greece.

Mr. Eden: The trades unionists who visited His Majesty's Ambassador to Greece claimed to be the legitimate and duly elected officials of the General Confederation of Workers of Greece. I cannot at present add anything to this statement.

Miss Ward: My right hon. Friend does not feel, I am sure, that there was anything lacking in their bona fides?

Mr. Eden: The House will understand that these questions are difficult for us to assess. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dodging."] I try to be fair. I say they are difficult to assess in a country in which trade unions have been suppressed for many years, but I have not the slightest doubt that His Majesty's Ambassador is doing all he can to check the information, and to give us the truest and fullest report.

Mr. Shinwell: If these questions are difficult to assess, as the right hon. Gentleman says, how does he account for the fact that the B.B.C., in their news service, declared that these trade union leaders were bona-fide representatives of 170,000 Greek workers when, in fact, they represented nobody but themselves?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman asserts a knowledge and I do not know how he comes to possess it at all. I presume that what the B.B.C. gave was the report which was made available to us, and

which was checked, as far as it was possible to check it in the circumstances of the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: Did not the right hon. Gentleman use it as propaganda?

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that the leading trade union signatory was a leading Quisling under the German Government?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman asks me about the record of a signatory. I say I do not know the record of all these individual Greeks, and I am moved and surprised at the deep knowledge which hon. Gentlemen have.

Mr. Cocks: Was not the right hon. Gentleman equally surprised about the knowledge I had of German rearmament, when he was on the other side of the House?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Gentleman had better look up his own record.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us have often been shocked by the little knowledge possessed by the British authorities in Greece, who have sent over information without checking it?

Mr. Eden: It is difficult to approach these matters without prejudice, and if I may say so the hon. Gentleman has not been a shining example in that respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — DR. NEGRIN (BROADCAST FACILITIES)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why facilities were refused to Dr. Negrin to broadcast to a meeting held recently in New York; and whether such refusal was given after consultation with the U.S. Government.

Mr. Eden: To enable Dr. Negrin to send a message for amplification at the meeting in question, it would have been necessary to give him facilities for the use of the transatlantic telephone. In wartime this telephone is only available for Government or Government-sponsored calls, Press calls or approved broadcast transmissions and its use is very strictly controlled. The granting of facilities to Dr. Negrin for political purposes would have constituted an unwarranted exception. There was of course no question of debarring Dr. Negrin from using freely the


usual facilities for transmitting his message by transatlantic cable. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Dugdale: Would it not be correct to say that if somebody of whom His Majesty's Government approve, such as General Plastiras, asked for the use of this telephone, permission would have been granted immediately?

Mr. Eden: I do not follow my hon. Friend's geography; General Plastiras is not here. This matter was brought to my notice and was settled in accordance with the practice we have followed. I think it only fair I should tell the House that foreign Governments resident in this country only have the use of this telephone on the rarest possible occasions, and that there would have been no case at all in my judgment for making this exception.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (FOREIGN WAR CORRESPONDENTS)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any foreign correspondents with the Soviet armies.

Mr. Eden: So far as I am aware, there are no foreign correspondents permanently accredited to the Soviet armies.

Sir A. Knox: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for that, as all the American and British Armies have correspondents? Has permission for correspondents been refused by the Soviet Government?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is not for me to say what reasons the Soviet Government may have for not having correspondents with their Armies.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the "Daily Worker" has a correspondent with the Soviet Army?

Sir A. Southby: If not, why not?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS WAR CRIMES COMMISSION

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make

a statement on the policy and work of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and, in particular, on the reasons for the resignation of Sir Cecil Hurst.

Mr. Eden: The United Nations War Crimes Commission was established in October, 1943. With the exception of the U.S.S.R. all the European Allies together with the Governments of Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, China and the United States are represented on it. The purpose of the Commission is to investigate all cases referred to it by any of the Allied Governments of atrocities committed by, or by order of, the nationals of any of the countries at war with any of the United Nations against nationals of the United Nations; to record and assess all available evidence upon such atrocities, and particularly on atrocities organised and committed in accordance with deliberate policy; and to report to the Governments of the United Nations cases in which the Commission is satisfied that an atrocity has been committed, naming, where possible, those wham they consider responsible.
The Commission has recently presented its first lists to the Governments represented on it. Since its establishment it has also produced a number of recommendations which have been forwarded to His Majesty's Government and the other Governments represented on the Commission. In some cases action has already been taken with a view to giving effect to these recommendations, but in general they relate to action which would have to be taken jointly by the military authorities of the Allies, and their consideration has therefore involved full consultation with the Government of the United States in the first instance. The recommendations put forward by the Commission include proposals as to method of trial of war criminals, which was dealt with in the Declaration on German atrocities published at Moscow on November 1st, 1943. The members of the Commission have recently been informed of the steps which have been taken, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, in regard to the more important recommendations which they have made. His Majesty's Government are anxious to facilitate in every possible way the work of the Commission, the importance and value of which they fully recognise.
As regards the latter part of the question, Sir C. Hurst resigned for medical reasons and on his doctor's orders. As has already been announced, his place has now been taken by Lord Finlay.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the more important recommendations of the Commission, to which he referred, have been accepted by His Majesty's Government, apart from the question of consultation with the other Allied nations; and also whether there has been, in fact, as has been frequently stated, a fundamental difference of opinion on certain matters between the Commission and His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of that supplementary question, as I say, some of the recommendations have been accepted, and some require consultation with Allies. The answer to the last part of the Question, is "No, Sir." I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding which I hope my answer will help to clear up.

Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman said in a speech, or a statement, the other day that our treatment of Hitler and his accomplices after the war would be political, rather than judicial treatment under the war criminals regulations or decisions, what did he mean by that exactly? Is any attempt being made to whitewash Hitler and company?

Mr. Eden: There is another Question on the Paper on this subject.

Mr. Driberg: With regard to those recommendations which require consultation between the Allies, have His Majesty's Government expressed any view for or against to the Commission?

Mr. Eden: We have consulted our Allies, and we have told our Allies what we thought.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (FOOD SITUATION)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the present food situation in France; what help has hitherto been given by U.N.R.R.A.; and what assistance has been or is being given by His Majesty's Government and/or U.N.R.R.A., in transport equipment particularly.

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 5th December to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers). With regard to the second part of the Question, the provision of relief supplies and transport equipment for France does not fall upon U.N.R.R.A. This has hitherto been the responsibility of the Supreme Allied Commander, who has provided lorries, railway material and other equipment for both operational and civil purposes. Arrangements have now been made whereby the French Government will be able also to import supplies on their own account.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CRIMINALS (HITLER AND MUSSOLINI)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement on His Majesty's Government's proposals with regard to the trial of Hitler and Mussolini.

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add at present to the Declaration on German Atrocities issued as the result of the Conference held in Moscow on 1st November, 1943, under which the major criminals whose offences have no particular geographical localisation will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) on 4th October last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER AND SPANISH MOROCCO (GERMAN AGENTS)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Spanish Government has now complied with the terms of the agreement concerning Tangier and Spanish Morocco announced on and May, 1944.

Mr. Eden: I stated on 27th September in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend that the German Consulate-General in Tangier had been closed and its entire staff withdrawn. All the German agents resident in Tangier have since been expelled, but there remain some seven German agents in Spanish Morocco for whose expulsion we are continuing to press.
I should also mention that in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the Japanese Military Attaché was withdrawn from Tangier.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Royal Observer Corps (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for Air why members of the R.O.C., who enrolled for full-time duties on a 48-hour week basis for the duration of war, have had this condition varied to a 60-hour week; whether those members of the R.O.C. who have refused to sign the new undertaking are debarred from the increases in basic pay and the higher rate of service pay; and the reasons for refusing to pay such increases to Mr. G. Wright, of Peterborough.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): In June, 1944, higher rates of basic and service pay were awarded to members of the Royal Observer Corps on condition that they undertook to work up to 60 hours a week, if necessary, without overtime payment. The object of this requirement was to equate conditions of service throughout the Corps and members were fully aware that there was no intention of increasing the normal working week of 48 hours. The member to whom my hon. Friend refers declined to give the necessary undertaking and is thus ineligible for the higher rates.

Mr. Walkden: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence on this subject; and is he not aware that these men have fulfilled their contracts of 48 hours a week since the beginning of the war, but are having to refuse an increase because they will not agree to a variation which has never been negotiated by anybody?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have looked at the correspondence, and I feel convinced that this arrangement is fair. Those who stand on the letter of their bargain, and refuse to work for more than 48 hours per week, will continue to receive the rate of pay for which they contracted to work. Those who wish to receive an increase which will bring them into line with Civil Defence workers—who are under an obligation to work up to 72 hours per week and normally work more than 48

hours—can receive that increase, if they will undertake the obligation to work up to 60 hours. This arrangement has commended itself to nearly 95 per cent. of the men who have signed the undertaking.

M.P.'s Speech, Cairo

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air on whose authority the report of a speech made by the hon. Member for Ipswich on 1st December to R.A.F. troops in Cairo was banned for publication in "Air Force News."

Sir A. Sinclair: Publication of the hon. Member's speech in "Air Force News" was not banned. The editor excluded it owing to shortage of space.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received communications from Egypt specifically stating that publication of the report was banned at a higher level, and that no senior officer who was present took exception to what I stated? Further, is he aware of the great unrest among people out there, and that although the local British newspapers carried a report of my speech it was specifically banned from "Air Force News"?

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member is trying to pull me outside the limits of his Question. The fact is that the standard of contribution to "Air Force News" is very high [Laughter].

Mr. Stokes: This is a serious matter. Is the Minister aware that opinion prevalent among the Armed Forces in the East is that they are only served up with political news of the Right and reports of speeches of the Left are not allowed to be published?

Sir A. Sinclair: If the hon. Gentleman challenges me, and says that this is a serious matter, I want to tell the House quite outspokenly what I think. It seems to me that a speech addressed to men who are under a liability to enter into battle at any time, in which the leaders of the Allied Nations were described as going into the Teheran Conference to tear up the Atlantic Charter and sow the seeds of a future war; in which this House was described as a lunatic asylum in which the hon. Member was apparently the only sane man, and from which he had escaped for a few days; in which the Prime Minister, after proper compliments to the part he played in the earlier


years of the war, was described as an old man who loves war—such a speech, I say, lasting over one hour and arousing increasing resentment and widespread disappointment, as I am informed it did among his audience, is an abuse of the hospitality of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is it not a fact that permission to leave the country in this case was granted on the plea that the hon. Member had to attend to his business in Turkey, and that opportunity was taken to deliver an electioneering speech, which would not have been open to anyone who had not made that plea?

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. The Secretary of State has quoted from a report of the speech which he has received and which he has not had the courtesy to show me. Parts of what he has said are entirely without foundation. Have I not a right to see the report in view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. Friend's speech was as the right hon. Gentleman has reported, why did he not ban it?

Sir A Sinclair: There was no necessity to ban it. I think the editor showed a very nice judgment of his responsibility.

Mr. Turton: On whose authority was the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) allowed to address R.A.F. members?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not know exactly on whose authority but I am ultimately responsible to the House for that. I think it is reasonable that, when Members of Parliament are moving about among the troops—it applies to the other Services too—they should be invited to address the troops. They do in many cases, and I think it likely that these facilities are enjoyed by the troops, and Members of Parliament generally show a high sense of responsibility.

Mr. Gallacher: Does that apply to me?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: When I am on my feet, the hon. Member cannot put me down by saying it is a point of Order. I think we should go on with the Business. We are getting too much involved in personal

matters. The question that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) asks must be a matter between him and the Secretary of State for Air. I have no doubt that, if he asks, the right hon. Gentleman will let him see the report.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The Secretary of State has stated that Members of this House should be allowed to address members of the Forces. I want to know if that applies to me.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a report from a senior officer, which I hold in my hand, which says:
No complaint has reached me from anyone on this station nor, as far as I know, was exception taken here to any of your remarks"?

Sir A. Sinclair: My report is very different from that, and I am told that the hon. Member himself showed his consciousness of the resentment which some of his remarks aroused.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Now we must go on to the next Question.

Court-Martial Sentence (Petition)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has reviewed the proceedings of the court-martial on 994941 L.A.C. Stanley A. Mansell, formerly sergeant, who was reduced to the ranks and served a term of imprisonment after it had been established that a document used in evidence against him had been mistreated by the prosecution for the support of their case; and if he has any statement to make.

Sir A. Sinclair: A petition from this airman has been received, and is now under consideration. I will let the hon. Member know when it has been disposed of, so that he may put his Question down again, if he so wishes.

A.A.F. (Discharge Leave)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Air why some members of the Auxiliary Air Force are granted no more than 14 days' leave upon discharge and others have been discharged without any leave; and whether, pending revision of the whole procedure, the latter will be granted 14 days' pay and allowances.

Sir A. Sinclair: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to certain airmen of the Auxiliary Air Force whose terms of enlistment did not permit them to be freely posted and who therefore became redundant when their units were disbanded. Under the regulations existing when the first of these airmen were discharged, they were not entitled to any leave. The regulations, however, have recently been changed and 14 days' leave will, in future, be granted on discharge in such circumstances. Retrospective adjustment is being made in the cases to which my hon. Friend is referring.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.O.A.C. (DIRECTOR-GENERAL)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air, whether, in view of the fact that the present salary and expenses of the Director-General of the B.O.A.C. have now been stated, he will say what the salary and expenses, respectively, were for each year since his appointment.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am informed by the Corporation that they fixed the present salary of the Director-General at the time of his appointment. i.e. in May, 1943, and that it has not been varied since. The amount of his expense allowance has likewise not been varied in respect of service at home. Between June and October, 1943, a slightly higher rate was authorised by the Corporation in respect of service abroad, since when there has been no variation.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that the expenses allowance of £1,000 a year is a purely personal matter while serving at home?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think my answer is quite plain. There is no trap or trick about it. He receives a salary of £5,000 a year and the allowance of £1,000 a year has not been varied since October, 1943. I am asked about a variation. The only slight variation occurred between June and October, 1943, in respect of foreign travel.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Colonial Government Purchases

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider relaxing

the rule whereby all Colonial Government purchases have to be made through the Crown Agents for the Colonies, so that local traders in the Colonies may participate in orders for Government stores.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have been asked to reply. The rules allow a Colonial Government to buy locally stores produced in the Colony or stores which, owing to special circumstances, can be bought as advantageously in the Colony as they can be ordered from abroad. The system under which goods required from overseas are normally purchased through the Crown Agents secures the best possible terms for the Colonial Governments and ensures adequate inspection when necessary before despatch. The system has been particularly valuable to the Colonial Governments during the war. My right hon. and gallant Friend considers that the existing arrangements are in the best interests of the Colonies and he sees no reason to make any change at the present time.

Nutrition Experts

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is appointing nutrition experts for service throughout the Colonial Empire; and at what date a nutrition expert can be made available for duty in the Colony of Gambia.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir. Some appointments have already been made and further appointments have been provided for under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. It is hoped to send a trained nutrition assistant to the Gambia within the next few months.

British Colonies and Protectorates (Information)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider issuing a revised edition of the Return of British Colonies, Protectorates, &c., which was presented to Parliament in November, 1938, or, alternatively, a supplementary Return setting forth such changes as have taken place in the constitutions, qualifications for electors, and eligibility of candidates in the respective colonies, protectorates, &c., since 1938.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: A revised Return will be issued when the constitutional changes which are now taking place are


completed and my right hon. and gallant Friend will send the hon. Member the information which he desires as soon as it can be prepared.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FORCES, INDIA (PAMPHLETS)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Prime Minister who will be responsible for the drafting of the pamphlets that are to explain important matters of social legislation to the British forces in India; and what means are to be used to present divergent views when this legislation is of a controversial nature.

Mr. Attlee: These pamphlets will be prepared under the authority of the Minister or Ministers responsible for the particular policy described. The object of the pamphlets will be explanation, not advocacy, and the second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if these pamphlets take the form of an explanatory description of the Government White Paper, they will inevitably be propaganda for the Conservative Party at the next election? Surely, in fairness there should be some space in the pamphlet devoted to the opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED WAR EFFORT (MAN-POWER)

Sir O. Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister whether, before deciding upon the recent addition of 250,000 men to the United Kingdom combatant troops, discussions took place with those of our Allies who are less heavily mobilised, with a view to examining whether it would be more advantageous to the Allied war effort that these extra troops should be provided from sources other than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Sir O. Simmonds: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the extent of their mobilisation, as shown in the White Paper on the British war effort, indicates that this unilateral procedure cannot succeed much longer? Would he see that there is some consultation with regard to Allied man-power, in the same way as

there is in regard to Allied material resources?

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the importance of keeping British units up to full strength?

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Will the Government make such representations as are asked for in the Question before even thinking of sending women abroad?

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSING SISTERS (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the re-allocation of personnel as between the Army nursing sisters and the R.A.F. nursing sisters with a view to equalising the period of overseas service.

Mr. Attlee: The number of R.A.F. sisters is relatively small and the shortage of nursing sisters is as acute in the R.A.F. as in the Army. Transfers to the Army—even if desirable on other grounds—would not materially help to solve the Army's problem.

Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the period of four-and-a-half years' overseas service for a girl serving in a hospital in a tropical climate undermines her general health, and that when she sees someone else in the same theatre being sent home at a much earlier date she becomes bitter and demoralised?

Mr. Attlee: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to equalise the period of overseas service between the Services, he will consider some reallocation of man-power as between the R.N., the Army and the R.A.F.

Mr. Attlee: Every opportunity will be taken to reduce the time of service overseas for the Army but there is, I regret, no hope of achieving this by transfers from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Hon. Members will be aware of the figures given by the Secretary of State for War in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr.


Raikes) on 19th December. Such transfers as are now to be carried out are intended to increase the striking power of the Army.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the statement about re-allocation which was made over the wireless during the Recess, cannot my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about what re-allocation is taking place and what the purpose of it is if it is not to equalise the period of overseas service?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member had better put that down.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-U-BOAT CAMPAIGN

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Prime Minister whether he can add anything to the official statement already published in connection with the recent increase in sinkings by U-boats of Allied ships in the Atlantic Ocean.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. All statements on this subject are limited to the monthly joint statements by the President of the United States of America and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Sir A. Southby: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the views officially expressed by the United States Secretary of State as to the possible future status of Cyprus in relation to the problem of Greece; and if he will give an assurance that Cyprus will continue to form part of the British Empire, and that there is no question of it being ceded to Greece or any other country.

Mr. Attlee: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 8th November last in reply to a Question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the paramount importance of maintaining good relations between the United States and ourselves, will my right hon. Friend take such steps as lie in his power to inform public opinion in the United States that British subjects bitterly resent outside suggestions that British citizenship should be taken away from those who enjoy it?

Mr. De Chair: Is not this part of the Empire over the liquidation of which the Prime Minister said that he did not intend to preside?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY OPERATIONS, WESTERN FRONT (COMMAND)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make in respect of the command of the land forces on the Western Front since the end of August, 1944.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that correspondents three weeks ago revealed changes on 1st September, that a chance article which passed the censorship revealed opinion in America, and that since then other things have been said, is it not time we were told about these operational changes?

Mr. Attlee: I have nothing to add to the reply I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAF AID (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMMITTEE)

Sir D. Hacking: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give the names of the members of the committee which has been appointed to advise and assist the Medical Research Council in promoting research into electro-acoustical problems relating to the design and application of instruments in the alleviation of deafness; and whether he has anything to report as a result of the labours of this committee.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): The names of the members of the Committee are as follow: Dr. W. G. Radley (Chairman), Mr. E. J. Barnes, Sir Lawrence Bragg, Mr. N. Fleming, Dr. C. S. Halpike, Mr. L. C. Pocock and Dr. T. S. Littler (Secretary).
The Committee have formulated a detailed programme of research, and investigations in which physicists are collaborating with otologists and physiologists are in progress. The investigations now in hand will necessarily take some time to complete, and it is not anticipated that the Committee will be in a position to make any recommendations before the end of the year.

Sir D. Hacking: Will my right hon. Friend give the same practical sympathy to those who are totally and partially deaf as is meted out by the Government to those who are totally or partially blind?

Mr. Attlee: I hardly think that that arises out of the question of the appointment of this Committee and its work, but of course we all have that sympathy.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman place at the disposal of the Committee Members on the Front Bench for operational purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS

Sir H. Williams: asked the Lord President of the Council how many Statutory Rules and Orders were issued in 1944; how many of these were printed; and for comparison, the corresponding figures for 1943.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. The number of Statutory Rules and Orders issued in 1944 was 1,479 of which 1,074 were printed in the Statutory Rules and Orders series. The corresponding figures for 1943 are 1,792 and 1,380.

Major Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to relate that substantial reduction to the agitation in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Waste Paper Salvage

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Supply if the maximum collection of paper salvage is being maintained.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. Every effort is being made to maintain the maximum possible collection of waste paper, which is of the greatest importance in view of the continuing difficulty of the paper supply position.

Rural Estates (Maintenance Timber)

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that applications for timber for maintenance on rural estates are frequently not answered for three months or more and then forms are only sent to fill up for another Ministry to sanction; and will he expedite business at timber control area

at 1–6, Tavistock Square, to ensure that maintenance repairs to rural cottages, farm buildings and field gates can be more promptly dealt with.

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. Special arrangements have been made to enable farmers and owners of agricultural estates to secure licences for maintenance timber promptly and conveniently. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any cases he has in mind I will have them investigated.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I certainly can give particulars. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good deal of suffering is caused to old and sick people living in cottages by this regulation; and cannot he arrange for somebody to deal with this matter instead of "passing the buck" from one to another?

Sir A. Duncan: We do not "pass the buck."

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: It takes over three months to get an answer.

Judgment, Court of Appeal

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Supply if his attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, dated 8th December, 1944, in Reece versus Ministry of Supply and Ministry of Works and Planning, in which the Court commented gravely upon the levity, coupled with insistence, with which categorical statements were made on the instructions of the Ministry of Supply and which the court considered to be contrary to the high traditions of our Civil Service; and if, in connection therewith, disciplinary action or other has been taken to remedy the position disclosed.

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. The statements in question, which related to the nature of employment, were made by the solicitors acting for the Ministry of Supply in a compensation case on incorrect information supplied by the manager of a mine operated on behalf of the Ministry. I am having the whole matter carefully considered and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman find out why his Department, after the matter had been re-investigated, still insisted that the information they had given was correct?

Sir A. Duncan: That is not my information, but I am having it fully investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Milk (Miners' Canteens)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Food if the milk supplies of the country will now permit him to extend further supplies to the miners' canteens throughout the country which are in urgent need of additional milk supplies, to supplement the existing food rations.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): No, Sir. I am advised that the normal rations together with the meals prepared from the supplies of milk and other foods received by miners' canteens on the improved scale of industrial allowances are adequate for the nutritional needs of the miners.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this ban has been on for two years and that the effect of it is seen in the physical condition of the mine worker? Is he further aware that in the North-Western area we have 1,200 to 1,300 female workers who badly require this sustaining liquid?

Colonel Llewellin: There is unfortunately a considerable milk problem, as there always is in the winter months, and, of course, the hundreds of women workers are competing with the miners and other people for the very limited supplies I have got.

Mr. Foster: Is it not very important that we should have coal?

Turkeys (Price Control, Prosecutions)

Mr. Stourton: asked the Minister of Food the number of successful prosecutions effected against those guilty of disposing of turkeys above the controlled price.

Colonel Llewellin: During 1944, twenty-two.

Mr. Stourton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the number of prosecutions is entirely unsatisfactory in view of the fact that tens of thousands of turkeys were sold above the controlled price in East Anglia? Is he further aware that the surest way to promote black market activities is for a Government Department to issue orders it is apparently incapable of enforcing?

Colonel Llewellin: The number of black market offences have been very greatly exaggerated. We have not got a very large black market in this country. It is very difficult in these sales, in which there are two parties—a willing buyer wishing to pay an increased price and a willing seller hoping to get it—to get the information on which to prosecute. Wherever we can get the information, however, we are determined to prosecute, and we do so.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not this black market business only an increase in the normal capitalist robbery which is going on?

British Restaurants (Willesden)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the loss of over £1,500 during the six months ended 30th September, 1944, by the Willesden British Restaurants; who pays for the loss; what steps are taken to ensure reasonably efficient management; and whether there will be an inquiry.

Colonel Llewellin: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir," but this loss was incurred after providing £1,687 for amortisation of capital expenditure; the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise at present; to the third part, my Department has always suggested steps which may avoid any ultimate loss, and to the fourth part, "No, Sir."

Mr. Hammersley: Can the House take it that the policy of my right hon. and gallant Friend is that subsidies to British Restaurants from the rates are undesirable, and that, when it is found necessary when subsidies have been given, there will be some inquiry and some control from his Department?

Colonel Llewellin: The policy of the Department is to encourage British Restaurants wherever there is a consumer need for them. If it is obvious that the consumer need has dropped away, there is no point in running a British Restaurant which does not pay.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it not true in spite of those cases reported in the Press of losses on British Restaurants, that on the production and sale of meals, most local authorities by their efficiency have actually made a profit?

Colonel Llewellin: If you take British Restaurants over the country as a whole, they show a net profit and not a loss.

Cereal Products Division (Staff)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that two members of the staff of his Cereal Products Division are leaving his Department in order to take directorships with firms whom they have been controlling; and whether his permission was obtained to their leaving for this purpose.

Colonel Llewellin: One officer has with my permission resigned from the Ministry in order to join the staff—not the Board—of a milling company; the other, to whom my hon. Friend presumably refers, has transferred from one milling company to another. The latter has not left the Department and will not, of course, perform any duties with his company while in the service of my Department.

Short Weight

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the widespread complaints now being received from retailers and the consuming public about short weights experienced by retailers when receiving goods from wholesalers, if he will endeavour to stamp out these dishonest practices by detailing inspectors to supervise and check packages and produce at the producing end by calling in local food officers and weights and measures inspectors to assist wholesale enforcements, by making it compulsory for all wholesalers to supply retailers with proper invoices without prior request, and by securing the release of paper and other materials to seal packages and so prevent pilfering.

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the injustices suffered by retailers of fruit and vegetables owing to the inadequate enforcement of regulations; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of things.

Colonel Llewellin: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave on 20th December to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander).

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister satisfied that everything is being done by his Department to prevent these dishonest practices?

Is he further aware that I have had an opportunity of examining the weights, and that investigation revealed that short weight was being supplied in as much as 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of cases?

Colonel Llewellin: Wherever we get sufficient evidence of a flagrant case we take action, but in some cases we cannot get it. Take potatoes at the moment; because they cannot get all the earth off them, farmers find it very difficult to give exact weights. The producers are doing their best in these cases, but where there is flagrant repetition of the offence of giving short weight and we can get evidence of it, we certainly institute a prosecution.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does not the Minister recognise that coal merchants can be prosecuted if the hundredweight of coal is not exactly 112 lb.? If it is 110 lb., a coal merchant can be prosecuted. Why is it that right throughout the range of products from the farmers, both agricultural and horticultural, they are, in the main, sold to retailers below weight? This has gone on for a very long time. Cannot something be done to deal with it?

Colonel Llewellin: As I have tried to tell the House, it is an offence against the maximum prices order to charge those prices for short weight, as obviously the retailer is exceeding the maximum price for the amount. There is that point, but it is often very difficult to give exact weights. Allowances are made in our prices in all cases for a drop of about five per cent., which is the normal evaporation which takes place in products coming from the farms.

Mr. Walkden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment at an early date.

Public Relations Officer (Letter to Press)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the undesirability of civil servants engaging in public controversy with hon. Members, he will instruct his public relations officer to abstain in future from addressing letters to the Press similar to that published in "The Times" newspaper on 3rd January in reply to a letter written by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Lieut.-Commander Bower).

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. No controversy with any hon. Member was involved. The letter referred to merely set out the facts, and its terms had my personal approval before it was published.

Sir H. Williams: Is not the Minister appointed to be the public relations officer? Is not the expenditure of something like £750,000 on these unnecessary people very undesirable?

Colonel Llewellin: The Minister has much larger functions than merely being the public relations officer; but I do agree with my hon. Friend that the right place for Ministers and Members to discuss these matters is the Floor of the House of Commons and not the public Press.

Sir H. Williams: Yes, but surely, when the House is not sitting, a Member of Parliament is not debarred from exercising his right of criticism with regard to the Departments? If civil servants come into it, will not the position in this House become quite impossible?

Colonel Llewellin: In this case it was only a question of what the facts were. The letter was a statement of fact. The hon. and gallant Member concerned could have written to me or he could have got me on the telephone. I was available at the time, although the House was in Recess.

Advertisement

Mr. Petherick: asked the Minister of Food what was the cost of his Department's advertisement under the heading "Food Facts Puzzle Corner" in the London "Times" newspaper of 28th December, 1944.

Colonel Llewellin: Seventy-eight pounds.

Mr. Petherick: After examining the advertisement in question does not the Minister agree that it was wholly puerile and an absolute waste of the taxpayers' money?

Colonel Llewellin: I did see it, as a matter of fact, and I came prima facie to the same kind of conclusion as that of my hon. Friend; but I made inquiries when I got back to London, and I found it was an advertisement that was very generally appreciated. We had lots of evidence of that from a lot of houses up and down the country.

ELECTORAL REGISTER (DISSOLUTION DATE)

Mr. Attlee: I have been authorised by the Prime Minister to make the following statement:
On 31st October when moving the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill my right hon. Friend said that, between the date when the war with Germany can be officially declared over, and a General Election, there must be an interval. He felt it was inconceivable
that anyone would wish that election to be held in a violent hurry or while we were all rejoicing together and rendering thanks to God for our deliverance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 664.]
My right hon. Friend went on to point out that under the electoral arrangements then in operation there would have to be a prolonged interval between the polling date and the date of the issue of the Writs.
It is now proposed to alter by legislation the electoral arrangements which involved the preparation of an electoral register after the date of the proclamation and to substitute a system by which a fixed register will be in operation from 7th May. As a consequence of this change, there will not be the prolonged interval between the proclamation and the poll which was necessitated by the 1943 Act. There will be a reversion to the pre-war time-table and the interval between the proclamation and polling day will be 17 days.
This change in technical requirements does not, however, affect the broad considerations to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech of 31st October, and there will, he thinks, be general agreement with his view that when in the circumstances contemplated advice is tendered to the Crown in respect of a Dissolution, knowledge of the date should be available more than 17 days in advance.
The Prime Minister has, therefore, submitted to His Majesty that should he be pleased at any time to dissolve the present Parliament, it would be desirable for an announcement to be made of the actual date of the Dissolution in advance of the Royal Proclamation, and His Majesty has authorised him to say that, in the exceptional circumstances which may be expected, he is willing that an announcement of the date of the Dissolution shall be made three weeks in advance


of the formal proclamation. My right hon. Friend is therefore in a position to give the House an assurance that, whenever the contemplated General Election is decided on, an announcement of the date will be made at least three weeks plus 17 days before polling day.

Mr. Bowles: Does that part of the Prime Minister's statement about no election taking place until after the defeat of Germany also stand?

Mr. Attlee: Clearly my statement only affects the actual point with which I was dealing.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that under the Meetings of Parliament Act we must have regard to the fact that there will be a long delay before the count takes place and that therefore for a period of six or seven weeks it will be impossible for any Parliament to sit?

Mr. Attlee: That is another question and I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Deputy Prime Minister's statement affect the latter portion of the speech made by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Prolongation Bill with regard to the dissolution of the National Government and the formation of a new Government? Will that take place upon the date when the announcement is made?

Mr. Attlee: I am not varying anything in the statement made by the Prime Minister, except in regard to the changed circumstances brought about by the introduction of new legislation. My hon. Friend may take it that everything else stands.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make obligatory the carrying by bicycles and tricycles not propelled by mechanical power of rear lamps, red reflectors and white surfaces during the hours of darkness, and to relax temporarily, as respects such vehicles when stationary owing to the exigencies of the traffic or in order to comply with any traffic signal or direction, the obligation to show lights."—[Road Transport Lighting (Cycles) Bill [Lords.]

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Third Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Orders in Council adding Regulations 60CAA and 68D to the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 (S.R. & O. 1944, Nos. 1311 and 1312), presented on 5th December, and are of the opinion that the attention of the House should be drawn to Regulation 60CAA on the grounds that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made and that its form or purport calls for elucidation; and to Regulation 68D on the ground that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government franchises and the registration of parliamentary and local government electors, and otherwise to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government elections, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenses incurred by a Registrar General of births, deaths and marriages for the purposes of the said Act and of any increase occasioned by the said Act in the expenses so incurred for the purposes of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1943');
(b) of any registration expenses incurred by a registration officer under the said Act and of any increase occasioned by the said Act in registration expenses incurred by a registration officer under the Act of 1943 but not including any registration expenses incurred under either Act by a registration officer in Great Britain after the seventh day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five;
(c) to the council of any county or borough in England or Wales, and to the council of any county or burgh in Scotland, of the proportion specified in the said Act of the amount paid by the council on account of any registration expenses properly incurred by a registration officer under the said Act or the Act of 1943 after the said seventh day of May."
Resolution agreed to:

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of local government franchise.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.6 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I rise to express some doubts in regard to this Clause, which deals with the assimilation of the franchise. I am looking upon this as a non-party matter although I am told that the assimilation of the franchise would, in fact, help the party of which I am a Member. None the less, I think it is a very doubtful move and I am not sure that the benefits which it is alleged to confer, will not be outdone by the disadvantages. The Speaker's Conference, of which I was a member, did say, in the letter to the Prime Minister sent by Mr. Speaker on 24th May of last year, referring to the Resolutions:
Most of the other Resolutions were adopted unanimously: In the remaining cases there was a large majority in favour, and the minority accepted the conclusion and did not desire their disagreement to be recorded.
I was somewhat diffident in intervening on the Committee stage or at any stage of this Bill, having been a member of this Conference, but as it was stated that the decision was not necessarily unanimous, I feel I ought to say something on this matter.

It seems to me that the argument against the assimilation of the franchise is that it interferes with one of the main principles of local government, in fact almost the essence of local government, which is that it should be local, because it will, I understand, create some 7,000,000 new electors, a large proportion of whom may have nothing whatever to do with the localities in which they are given the franchise. It therefore seems to me that that is a dangerous move, because it is most important that every voter in an area should have an interest in his borough, or urban district council, or county council as the case may be, and should really feel identified with local interests, and should feel a solicitude with regard to the spending of the ratepayers'

money. The only continuing test of whether a person is or is not interested in a particular locality, is the test of residence, and that test is to a very large extent that of rating. The definition of ratepayer has been much widened fairly recently, and I think that, broadly speaking, practically all those who have a real interest in a locality are ratepayers there, and would have the vote. I am rather afraid that should this Bill go through, as it seems likely to do, with the assimilation of the franchise included, there will be, particularly in relation to the immediate future, a very large number of persons who have perhaps removed their residence during the war to another locality, and will temporarily be in that place, and who will have no interest except a purely transitory interest in that particular district. Therefore, it seems to me that the danger is that a large number of those people will be given a vote in an election concerning local finance without having any interest in the place. In many cases they may only be waiting to move.

The constitutional position is, I think, a little impaired. The old cry used to be "No taxation without representation," and the converse would hold very nearly equally true, "No representation without taxation." Now, as a result particularly of war Measures and of the Income Tax being applied to a very low income level, practically everybody in the country does contribute to the central Government's taxation, and taxation and the vote go together. But in this case, if the assimilation of the franchise goes through, a large number of people who do not pay rates will receive the vote. Therefore, it seems to me that the projected proposal is somewhat dangerous. I do not know if it is realised how great such movement of population is, even in ordinary times. I remember the Conservative agent in my Division in Cornwall—to which, as hon. Members know, England is attached—telling me some years ago that in one period between two registrations, one-third of the voting population, that is to say 16,000, had moved their residence. That may surprise a number of hon. Members. One would have thought that people in the county of Cornwall would be satisfied with their lot without wishing to change their houses. So if the change is as much as that in Cornwall, changes in many other parts of the country would be even more numerous.

I would like to answer the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), who, if I may say so, produced the best arguments in favour of the assimilation of the franchise during the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. He said that the Association of Municipal Corporations was in favour of the assimilation. As I understand it, that Association had only asked its individual corporations what their views were and those views were by no means unanimous. A number of them—I think a very considerable proportion—registered their disapproval of the change. There is no evidence whatever to show that each corporation did, in fact, consult its electorate at all. Therefore, how did it know what the general view of the ratepayers was in this matter? The County, Urban and Rural District Councils Associations had not, at that time, and even up to date, as far as I know, given their views at all. Secondly, the hon. Member for Romford said that everyone was entitled to the local government vote, in view of the fact that a considerable percentage of local government income came from the central Government. That is perfectly true, but already the people in the country have a control of that as taxpayers through the central Government, and if a taxpayer is not satisfied that the 50 per cent. which is being contributed by H.M. Government to the local authority to supplement the rates is being properly spent he can object to his representative in Parliament. That argument is not a very strong one either.

12.15 p.m.

His third argument, which was, I think, by far the best, was that he was anxious, as I feel we all are, to get young people, particularly ex-soldiers, sailors and airmen who have been fighting in this war, interested in local government. That is a strong point in favour of the assimilation of the franchise, but the qualification is so low that after the war, as His Majesty's Government provide enough houses for the people, they will in fact become ratepayers, as occupiers or owners, and will get the vote anyhow. Therefore, I maintain that that argument also is largely demolished. Finally, I think it will be admitted that at the present time the burden of rates is absolutely terrific. Whether we shall have time to reconsider and in due course bring about a reform of the rating system I do not know, be-

cause we shall have so much on our plate in the next few years that it will be difficult to do so. But the ratepayers themselves, as a result of this assimilation, may make a very strong demand for some reform in the rating system which it may be difficult to resist, because their case will be a fairly strong one. They will say that if they have not been swamped they have at least been diluted with 7,000,000 new electors who will spend the ratepayers' money and that surely these 7,000,000 new electors ought to be ratepayers, and that is a demand which it will be difficult to resist. For these reasons I feel extremely doubtful about the advisability of this move, and feeling more than uncertain, almost hostile to it, I felt that it was only right to put forward my views.

Mr. Woodburn: The Speaker's Conference, of which the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), with myself and several other hon. Members, was a member, discussed this matter very thoroughly and made a recommendation that there should be assimilation. Some of the arguments why this should be done have been stated quite concisely. The first, a very practical one, is that it is doubtful whether local government elections could take place at all, with the existing electoral machinery, unless this change were made; in other words, it would be almost impossible to compile a register in the old sense of the word for a municipality unless the present Bill did something to change the position. There is a fundamental reason, I think, why this change is necessary. The municipal franchise, as the hon. Member said, is automatically given to people who get married and as soon as they get a house. On account of the war it will be physically impossible to give large numbers of people houses for the next 10 years. The homes of the people have at the present time two or three families crowded into one house. Under the existing law, with the existing rents of those houses, it would not be possible for perhaps more than one family or a portion of one family to get the vote, and if this Clause were not passed we should be disfranchising large numbers, nearly all as a matter of fact, of the young men who had gone into the Forces and who afterwards married and


would have been setting up homes for themselves but for the difficulty of getting houses. The Conference felt that the ex-Servicemen were entitled to have their votes for local authorities in their towns and counties as well as to have their votes for Parliament.
In addition there are many people who were left at home and did not go into the Forces; they have been playing their part in the civilian life of the country and will also be unable to get houses. They may be young men or young women, or old men and old women, living in their parents' houses, and they would not be able to exercise the franchise because the family could not move to a bigger house. On the other hand people who may not have contributed very much to the life of the community would, because they have a big house with a large number of rooms, get the vote, as the rental of the house would cover the amount stipulated as qualifying for a vote. The hon. Member said these people were not paying rates, but local government is not financed entirely out of rates. Approximately half the cost is in many cases paid out of the taxes, and to-day all the population are paying taxes relative to their incomes and sometimes are a very high proportion of them. Taxation has extended into realms of the population which prior to the war it did not touch, and therefore, through taxation, these people are making a very big contribution to local government expenditure. It is a folly to say they are not contributing to local government expenditure. Anyone with experience of the rents charged for sublets of houses and for apartments will know that people who have not the vote are paying not only their own rates but the landlords' rates as well, and probably subsidising those who own the house and paying all the expenses. If a landlord is able to explain to them that the charges are due to the rates the people will have a very great interest in looking after the rates. Indirectly they pay too, because the young people are those who are spending the money. They spend money in shops, in theatres and in cinemas, and thus indirectly contribute to the rates, because a great part of the rates is provided by these organisations of social wellbeing. I think these arguments are sufficient to show that the Committee ought to pass this Clause, so that the men who have fought for us

or worked in industry should have the right to vote as citizens, and there is no better education in citizenship than giving people the responsibility of carrying out their duties. That was the opinion of the Speaker's Conference, and if it was not recorded unanimously it was agreed practically unanimously.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Acland-Troyte: I do not want this Clause to pass without entering a protest, but at the same time I do not want to repeat all the arguments used so very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on Second Reading. One of the strongest points which has been made was about people not being able to get houses and having to live with their families. That is a strong argument, but that condition of affairs will disappear by degrees, and I do not think we ought to pass permanent legislation based upon a temporary situation. This proposal is quite opposed to the principle that representation and taxation should go together, as they must in our state of democracy. The suggestion that people who do not pay rates subscribe to the expenditure of local authorities through taxation does not, I think, hold water, and at any rate the people who pay as taxpayers all have a vote for this House. I hope the Minister will be able to give this matter further consideration. One point which has not been raised at all is that under this Clause it will be possible for a man who is not a ratepayer to be elected to a local authority and he will be spending the money of the ratepayers to which he himself is not contributing. That point is one which ought also to be considered.

Mr. Reakes: I should like briefly to support the Clause, although I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), which gave a very well-considered viewpoint on behalf of those who are against the Clause. I feel there is a tendency to-day to regard the payment of rates as the be-all and end-all of citizenship. It is not. All these people, whether they are tenants of houses and, as such, ratepayers, or are in apartments, have a direct interest in the affairs of the town in which they live. They are directly concerned with the decisions of the education authority, the health committee, and, in


cases where the municipality owns transport and other services, with the decisions of the trading committees. To my mind that is an important point, because if these people are not getting an adequate motor-bus service—and in the case of Merseyside a ferry service—or if the fares charged are excessive, they have no alternative but to put up with it. Why should not these users of municipally-owned trading undertakings have a say in the formation of the committees and in the policy pursued by the local authority? There is a ridiculous fear that young people are going to stampede town councils into squandermania, taking their duties as electors in a light-hearted fashion. That is not true. I believe they will display far greater intelligence in voting than have some of their seniors in the past. We know, further, that all the big issues in local government are not decided by the elected representatives of the the people. If there is a big development scheme there will be a private Bill in Parliament, and if it is not a big enough scheme for that it may still be subject to loan sanction. The local authority has to go to the Ministry for sanction for a loan and before sanction is given there is always a very careful inquiry into the proposal to make sure that it is sound and in the interests of the local authority and of the Government Department. Therefore, whilst there is a great deal to be said against this proposal on the argument of shifting populations and the like, we have to recognise that for a number of years married people of responsibility and of political intelligence will have to live in apartments, and why should they have to continue for years without a say in the election of the local authority? I think it is an excellent Clause and I strongly support it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley): I think the Committee are making rather heavy weather of this matter. As has been said, it was discussed at length by the Speaker's Conference, on which there were excellent representatives from the Conservative side, and that Conference decided by a majority that this proposal was not only expedient at the present moment but was desirable, I think the arguments put forward to-day about many people living in localities which they will presently be leaving and the fact that there is a shortage of houses are not considerations which affect the real

reason for this Clause: this thing is absolutely right in principle, and the only objection raised against it is on behalf of privilege. Therefore, I hope the Committee will pass this Clause without delay.

12.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This matter was, of course, debated on the Second Reading of the Bill and very competent and able speeches on both sides were made and, indeed, that has been the case to-day. The Government thought that, having regard not only to the merits of the case, but to the general agreement among members of the Speaker's Conference, it was right and proper to make the change. I quite agree that it is a substantial change, and it is right that the Committee should take notice of it. We did think, however, as I have said, that it was a proper change to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) said he had been advised that the politics of the proposal were all right, as far as his party was concerned, but that, nevertheless, he was rather worried about it. To be frank I have not the least idea what the political results of this change will be on the fortunes of the parties. I do not know, and I do not think anybody will know until the event—and even then they will be lucky if they do—what influence this factor has had. It is worth noting that complete Parliamentary universal suffrage did not come about until the General Election of 1929. That was a similar big change. It is perfectly true that the 1929 Election, from the Labour and Liberal points of view, was better than the one before, but I cannot say that we have had a great deal of luck in any dramatic sense at elections since. What effect that great change had on the Parliamentary franchise is very disputable, and it is highly probable that the young people divide their votes in much the same proportion as the older ones. In any case, the thing is to do what is right and proper.
Is it not a fact that the distinction as regards local government franchise has become rather unreal? In relation to local government franchise the theory was that the ratepayer voted because he paid rates; therefore, if the rates went up he got stung, and if they went down things were better for him, and it en-


couraged him to take an interest. Logically, it ought to have been confined to the direct ratepayer alone. A large proportion of the ratepayers, or rather the occupiers, the voters, do not pay rates direct, and a large number of them do not know what the rates are. The next thing is that the lodger vote had become farcical. If the furnishing was provided by the father or mother, the young man or woman could not vote, but if it was provided by the young man or woman they could vote. What happened in a number of cases, where the family was an intelligent one, was that they provided the young man or woman with a rent book, and they got the vote.
Broadly speaking, I think local government voting has to be done on the broad basis of citizenship, in the same way as Parliamentary voting. There is the point about the ex-Service man who may not come back to unfurnished accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said, it would be too bad if he were excluded. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Sir G. Acland-Troyte) did say that it would broaden the right to stand for election, that is to say, a person who is not a ratepayer will be eligible for election as a councillor. If I may say so, that was already the case. The qualifications for a candidate are being an elector, the ownership of property, either leasehold or freehold, or 12 months' residence. I can say that without any briefing, because I have said it so many times. Therefore, there is no change in that respect.
In all the circumstances, I trust the Committee will approve this Clause, and if we could approve it now I would be grateful. I do not wish to hurry the Committee unduly, but we would like to get through the Committee Stage to-day because, frankly, we are fighting time on this Bill especially in view of the postal vote for Service men.

Major York: In regard to evacuation areas such as my own constituency, if this arrangement goes through, as it is now proposed in the Bill, a large number of civil servants and other evacuated personnel will have the right to vote in municipal elections although they may soon be leaving such areas. It seems to me that we are on rather dangerous ground if we give large numbers of people

the right to vote in municipal elections in an area in which they have no intention of continuing to live. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's point. I am afraid that is so. I admit there is something in what he says, but I do not see what can be done about it. The same point will arise on the Parliamentary franchise though I admit that a local authority is one thing, and Parliament another. I cannot see what I can possibly do to meet the point, unless the Government take the matter in hand and more civil servants at the right time.

Major York: Is that the right answer?

Mr. Morrison: I would not like to commit myself.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Triennial elections.)

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, leave out "of seven years," and insert:
beginning on the day on which the councillors elected at the ordinary election held last before the commencement of this Act came into office and.
This Amendment is necessary because the reference to the period of seven years in the Clause cannot fit the case where the last ordinary elections were not held in 1939, but were held in 1938 and 1937. Therefore, we have to put in words to cover the period of more than seven years which will then be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: I am calling the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) with some hesitation. Perhaps the two Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member could be taken together.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "March," and insert "May."
I am much obliged to you, Major Milner. I think it would be suitable to


discuss these two Amendments together, and I appreciate your difficulty about this Amendment. Perhaps I owe an apology to the Committee for the fact that there is not on the Order Paper, a number of substantial consequential Amendments that would necessarily have to be inserted in the Bill in order to make effective the alteration I suggest.
Briefly, the reason for the Amendments is that the time at which local government elections are now held—as they must be held according to the Statute—are very inconvenient indeed. This is particularly true about municipal elections. I have fought many municipal elections in my time, and so have many other Members of the Committee, and when I look back over my political history, municipal elections conjure up in my mind a vista of cold, wet and foggy occasions. I shiver even to-day at the recollection of some of the open-air meetings that I addressed in the course of such municipal campaigns. November is about the worst time that could have been chosen.
It is true that the Amendment moves the date only a fortnight nearer summer, and it may well be said that it does not justify all the alterations that would be necessary and the re-arrangements that would be occasioned in order to get it advanced by a fortnight. I would be content if my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, moved it further still. Indeed, there is an Amendment to a subsequent Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) which would advance it to 1st October and that, I suggest to the Committee, is a better date than 15th October.
After all, we are anxious to give every facility to a democracy to register its views, although we have to confess that the percentage of electors that goes to the polls in municipal elections is lamentably low. That is the experience, not only of London and the great towns, but even of a large number of smaller towns in this country, and any step we can take that will make it easier for campaigns to be conducted and will facilitate the voting by electors whose votes should be registered should surely receive the support of the Committee and of the Government. I, therefore, urge upon the Home Secretary to take the chance offered by this Bill of moving the date of

municipal elections to a more convenient time.
There is also the specific Amendment, on which I am speaking now, which would alter the date of county council elections from March to May. I have not had much experience of county council elections. I have never contested one, and I have only once participated in such an election, but I feel sure that with regard to them, also, an effort should be made to find a date more helpful to electors than March. There is very little in the agricultural argument that elections should not come at harvest time, or at a period which would be inconvenient to agriculture.

Mrs. Tate: When does the hon. and learned Gentleman have his harvest? I would ask him to try to learn a bit about the countryside.

Mr. Hughes: In any event, I would ask the Committee to find a more convenient time than March for county council elections.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: There is on the Order Paper, Major Milner, an Amendment in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland). That Amendment deals with a proposed alteration in the date of borough council elections. As it is a similar topic to that dealt with in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, may I ask whether it would not be a convenient course if we were to discuss together all these Amendments which deal with alteration of dates of elections?

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment down on the next Clause, and I was wondering whether we could not discuss the whole question together. Then the Home Secretary could give one reply and, if it were thought desirable, the Amendments could be moved formally.

The Chairman: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee. Is it agreed that we take the Amendments together?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to support the alteration of the date of municipal elections from November to some other time. I have had experience similar to that of my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes). I do not know if Members on the other side do as we do, but we treat municipal elections almost like Parliamentary elections. We address meetings at street corners, often with not very big audiences. In the last week before November one is generally addressing meetings in a fog. [Interruption.] Perhaps one's ideas are not very clear, but the fog makes them still more dense. The real objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman when I last spoke about this matter, was that the change might interfere with holidays. I do not think that there should be much trouble about holidays at the end of September. The few people who go away in September are not likely to affect the election results materially. The question is, whether we get a real expression of opinion from the people and whether we are able to put our views properly to the people on a cold night in October or November. It will probably be a long time before there is any other alteration in the Franchise Acts, and it would be wise to deal with this matter now—not necessarily by a drastic alteration. I put down October, in place of November, but I am prepared to accept any change. It is true that there may not have been any strong expression of opinion from the people on this matter, but it should be remembered that the war obscures everything else in their minds at present. We in Parliament, however, are the guardians of the people's rights, and we are supposed to watch these things carefully. We may be told that there has been a Speaker's Conference, and that all the parties have given way on certain points in order to get a generally-agreed Bill, but I do not think that that ought to weigh with us on a question like this. I do not think that those Members who were on the Speaker's Conference would object to some change of this kind. However slight the alteration might be, I would gladly accept it.

Sir Adam Maitland: I would like to support the Amendment. I have had some experience of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I think their opinion is worth consideration. I know that I shall carry my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with me that far, because he has already asked them for a statement of their opinion on this matter; and they advised him some time ago that they would prefer elections

in the Spring, rather than in November. It is true that they did not take an individual vote of their constituent members, but some time ago one borough circulated all the municipal boroughs, asking their views about the proposed change. There are 420 municipal boroughs in England and Wales, of whom 292 replied to the circular, and 234 of these supported a resolution in favour of the change now suggested in this Amendment.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could my hon. Friend say whether it is part of the proposal of the Association that the county council, district council, and borough elections should all take place at the same time?

Sir A. Maitland: Quite frankly, I think that the Association of Municipal Corporations have contented themselves by stating their view with regard to their own constituent members. They would probably feel that it would be outside their jurisdiction to speak for county councils and district councils, which have other bodies to look after their interests; but the boroughs and county boroughs are largely in favour of the action suggested by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Home Secretary will take that into consideration.

Mr. Butcher: It seems to me that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has a confidence in the stabilty of the British weather which is not justified by the facts. Good weather for campaigning is as likely in November as at any other time of the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a matter of experience. I ask that on this subject we should bear in mind that the fine weather is of use to those engaged on the land not only for purposes of electioneering, but also for purposes of work. It is also a question of whether in fine weather the pull of the allotment will not be at least as great as the pull of the polling booth. In these circumstances, I feel that, unless the Home Secretary can show that there is a very strong feeling for the change, there is a lot to be said for leaving things as they are.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: There appear to be two considerations which affect this matter. The first is the relative inclemency of the weather in March or November. The second is whether, if the election is held


in the Spring, there may not be other distractions which will attract the electors away from the place of polling. That objection is, I understand, the objection which my right hon. Friend feels to the proposed alteration in the date. I must confess that I have no very strong feelings on this topic one way or the other. I should have thought that on those two considerations, the balance was probably in favour of holding municipal elections in the Spring rather than in the Autumn, but I see no very great advantage in shifting the election from November to the middle of October. It seems to me that if you are going to make a change in this date, which has become well established as the date when people begin to anticipate that municipal activity will intensify itself, it would be better to make a much more complete change in the date, and to hold the borough elections in the Spring. I should have thought that on balance, having regard to the views that the boroughs themselves have expressed, that probably would have been the best course to take. But I can see the substantial objections to October. If the election takes place in the middle of October the election campaign will go on for three to four weeks perhaps before the election, and, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has said, it will, I think, overlap with the holidays period of quite a large number of people. It would also be open to the objection that the days are longer, and people would probably be attracted by other interests. If we are to have a change I think we should have a drastic change, and hold these borough elections in the Spring.
Perhaps there is one other difficulty which might arise in the case of an October election. Twice, I think, in the last few years a Parliamentary election has taken place in October. If a Parliamentary election takes place in the Autumn at all, it is, I think, very desirable that it should be before the end of October, because the difficulties of bad weather are much greater in the case of Parliamentary elections than in the case of municipal elections. If the municipal elections were fixed for the middle of October, it would mean that Parliamentary elections in the Autumn would either clash with the municipal elections or have to go to some date

in November, which would be a very inconvenient time. As I say, I have no very strong feelings one way or the other, but if we do make a change for municipal elections, I ask that it should be a complete change.

Mr. Tom Brown: The point I would like to put forward is based on the change of circumstances which we have witnessed over a number of years in the industrial areas. That is a point that hon. Members opposite may, unintentionally, have overlooked. The November date was fixed as far back as 1835, more than 100 years ago, and it has remained unchanged, but the conditions in the industrial areas have changed considerably. We have a tremendous number of shifts now in industry, which we did not have hitherto. Therefore, it is important to ask the Home Secretary to consider a change from November to October.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) said that, from the weather point of view, he did not think that there was any argument for changing the date. Even if his argument is sound, there is no reason why we should not make it more convenient for the electors to participate in elections during the period of lighter evenings. It is known to hon. Members who represent industrial constituencies that we have a tremendous number of intermittent shifts being worked, and it would be much better to allow people to vote when the days are longer. I ask the Home Secretary to consider the matter in the light of the various points which have been put forward. I think it will be desired to change the date from November to October. Furthermore, representations have been made over a long period by various organisations that the polling days should be changed from November even to September, but we have not gone as far as that. We ask that it should be changed from November to October, and I support the contention put forward by my hon. Friends.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I should like, very briefly, to support the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I do so because I myself have fought two municipal elections and have taken part in a great many others in industrial areas, and I think anyone who has done so will remember that it is only with the greatest difficulty


in the world that people can be induced to come out to vote at all at that time of the year. They are rather inclined to be bored by the whole thing. You knock at a door, and a child comes to the door and says "What is it?" You say "It is about voting," and the father or mother then tells the child to say "I am not going this year." I believe May is a better date than October, and that you would then find people in a better frame of mind and more willing to come out and vote. It is our duty to do everything we can to help people to use their franchise, and, unless we have the election at a reasonable time of the year, it will be very difficult. There is also the important matter of the health of the people who do the canvassing. How many hon. Members know of people who have died from pneumonia purely as a result of going out to do what they deemed to be their duty at that very difficult time of the year? I hope the Minister will make some concession. I prefer October to no change at all, but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend oppositie that May would be better still.

Mr. Oldfield: I support the remarks of many hon. Members in regard to the alteration of the date. I have had a good deal of experience in electioneering work, and I have fought elections in April and March and also in November. My experience tends to support the alteration to the month of May. I do not particularly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in favour of October, because the city council of Manchester are almost unanimous in supporting the alteration to May. I think there is a good deal to be said for it. I know the arguments on both sides in relation to the difficulties of the voter, as mentioned by the last speaker. I feel that it can and does act both ways. If the election is in May, the bowling greens are open and the tennis courts are in full swing, and it is often difficult to get people to come off a bowling green, and, of course, you cannot catch them indoors. There is the other argument, as far as meetings are concerned, that it is easier to work up enthusiasm in May than in the month of October or in the sometimes rather bleak month of April. Therefore, I support the suggestion that some alteration be made and I should prefer the election being held in May.

Sir G. Acland-Troyte: I think that, so far, all the argument have been used in regard to borough elections, and not in regard to the county councils. There is a good deal to be argued on the question of inclement weather, especially in regard to county council elections. I think, however, on the whole, it would be better to leave the elections as they are for this reason. The county council budget is passed at the end of March, and I think it is better that it should be passed by the new county council than by the retiring council.

Mr. H. Morrison: This is a matter upon which it is very legitimate that there should be more than one opinion, and I do not deny for one moment that hon. Members who have argued for a change have made a case. But I am bound to say that, for reasons which I will indicate, I do not so far feel convinced, and the Government do not feel convinced either. I have often heard debates on this matter at conferences of a certain political party, and there have been arguments for and against. My recollection is that, in the end, such uncertainty and confusion arose about the subject that our old friend the "next business" was moved and it was decided to make no decision. I also have had experience of the conduct of municipal elections, and I have driven many people to go canvassing. I am bound to say, in response to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras North (Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris), who spoke about people who had died from pneumonia as a consequence of going canvassing in October, that I do not remember one case. I do not remember having killed anyone in that way, but I cannot presume that there are no such cases.
Let us consider. The 1st November is a date with a lot of history and tradition behind it. It is, of course, the case that that is the day of the election, but the actual fighting of the election takes place, broadly, throughout the month of October. Do not let us exaggerate the evils of October. October is not too bad a month. Some people even have their summer holidays in October, and cricket matches, so I am told, are held then. It is a vigorous month, one in which, it is true, the breezes begin to blow and a certain bite comes into the atmosphere, but that is conducive to mental liveliness and stimulation and to physical stimula-


tion, which is not unimportant in the conduct of elections. It could be argued that, from the point of view of the physical and mental energy of the people, there is a lot to be said for October. I do not see anything in the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) about 15th October. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) that it does not seem to be worth all the bother.
When we come to May, there is this to be said. You might have a May in which things are not bright, and in which you have not got the stimulus to mental and physical energy. It might be rather an extraordinary May in which it was really warm, but I am not sure that that would be conducive to liveliness or energy. As a practical electioneerer, and I am talking about it purely in a practical sense at the moment, I personally have resisted the idea of May for the reason that was given by one hon. Member. I think that the competitive attractions, not only of allotments, but of open-air sports of one kind and another and all sorts of things that take people into pleasant pursuits, and take their minds off electioneering, might result in not getting as much interest in May as you would get in October.
The other point is: Where do we finish up in the end? The Association of Municipal Corporations, for whose views I always have a high regard—though hon. Members must not assume that they are right, because they are sometimes wrong; at least I think so, because they sometimes disagree with me—have expressed an opinion in favour of the Spring, and their opinion is certainly worth taking into account and treating with respect. If Spring is right for the borough elections, it is right for the county council elections and the district council elections. Indeed, the county council elections are already held in March in England and Wales, though, curiously, in December in Scotland. The district council elections are held either in March or April. I have a recollection that the percentage of electors voting at district councils, taking them as a whole, is no higher than that of the borough council elections in November.
Supposing we got all these elections mixed up and taking place, either on the

American pattern, on the same day, or within a short space of time, again, speaking as a practical electioneerer, I would say, "No." If I were looking after London, I would not want the London County Council elections to be mixed up with the Metropolitan borough council elections, or vice versa. You might have things happening on the one council for which the other might be blamed. I think each election should be separate, with a space of time between them, so that the merits of each class of local authority can be on trial and under examination. If we adopt the spring, we are proving the case which I think the Association of Municipal Corporations implies; that is to say, either you get these elections very close together, or you are driven to have them on the same day. I think that would be a great pity. I think they ought to be separated, and that issues ought to be settled at each election on their merits, and that such a course is better for the political organisations as well.
In any case, I put this to the Committee. I have expressed the view which, on the whole, the Government take. I admit that it is arguable and that there might be some disputation about it. I think it would be a pity to seek to settle it on this Bill. This is not the sort of Bill on which this question ought to be settled, because we should be faced with a large number of consequential Amendments which might delay the passage of the Bill. It is one of those things on which it is hard to have a dogmatic opinion, but I think that, some day—I cannot promise it for this Government—a Government might set up a conference or committee, including representatives of local authorities, the party headquarters, and Members of Parliament, and have a look at this to see whether any agreement could be reached and whether it is possible to reach it by spacing out the elections in a proper way. When things are less pressing, I personally would be in favour of this subject being examined, but I think it is a doubtful point on which to take any action in this Bill. Whilst I do not wish to be unduly dogmatic about it, I think the balance is against a change at this moment, and, in all the circumstances, I hope hon. Members may see their way not to press the Amendments which are before the Committee.

Mr. Lipson: Cannot my right hon. Friend go a little further and agree now that a committee should be appointed to consider this? There is no question of principle involved; it is just a question of which date is more convenient. This raises the issue whether it is desirable to have elections on the same day or whether there should be some space of time between. I should have thought that, in view of the fact that we are to resume elections in the Autumn, and that we are increasing very considerably by this Bill the numbers of people who will vote, this is the time to take the step of appointing a committee to consider what changes should be made. I think that the Minister might say that he will give further consideration now to the point, instead of suggesting vaguely that some Government, some day might do it—which I think was rather contrary to his ordinary political philosophy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say that he himself is prepared either to agree, or to give further consideration, to the appointment of a committee to consider the question of date.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I was thinking on my feet as I went along. I did not like to give a firm promise because, frankly, this Government have their share of committees of one sort or another. We have a very large number. We have not been unindustrious in appointing committees and I am afraid of getting too many. Therefore, I would not like to make any promise to the Committee, but I am tempted by the suggestion and I can only say that I will give the matter further consideration. I would have to consult colleagues about it. I hope that the Committee will not regard me as being committed, but I will look at the matter to see whether this is desirable.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bartle Bull: I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered, or will consider, the question of vacancies. On the top of page 4 the Bill says:

If the vacancy occurs within the said six months, it shall remain unfilled until the first ordinary election required to be held under Sub-section (1).
A council might, reasonably, be equally divided; one party might have a majority of one, and one seat being vacant, it could upset the balance. I was wondering whether hard cases would affect the position.

Mr. Tinker: I want to deal with the question of aldermen. If we allow the Clause to go through without some protest, it might be accepted that no one had paid any attention to the question of aldermen. The extension of the franchise means that everybody should have the right to exercise the vote. By keeping on aldermen we are putting men into positions who would never come before the electorate. The appointment of aldermen depends on the political party in power on the council. I should think that this sort of thing has been going on for 100 years and that it was brought about at the time because people who had served on councils for a long time might act as guides to younger people who were not used to municipal matters. Everybody who is elected to a council should have knowledge of municipal business and should not be dependent upon aldermen to be put into the way along which they should go. I am not going to ask for a division, or any alteration of the Clause, but I would ask the Home Secretary whether, when he is considering the various points, the position of aldermen ought not to be altered.
I have not heard of anyone being able to justify a continuance of this system of aldermen. I know of some aldermen who have done a lot of work and who do not want to have to face the electorate again, and they argue that, if they themselves are willing to carry on longer, they are justified in doing so. I have spoken to aldermen and have asked them whether they could really justify keeping their position, and they have replied that they could not. It is not a question of democratic control. How men are justified in occupying positions like that passes my comprehension, unless it is the carrying on of some old system. I want the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General to give an explanation to-day. I want a promise that at some other time this question will be examined in the light of being considered obsolete. I am raising my voice


in protest because it would not be right to let this matter go through without somebody having done it.

Mr. Burden: I must, in view of what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), say a word or two in defence of the aldermen, but I must also declare an interest, as I happen to be an alderman myself, and I believe that the Home Secretary also shares that very high honour. The position overlooked by my hon. Friend is that while in his part of the world the position of aldermen may be given for the reasons he has indicated, in other parts of the country that is not always the position. Aldermen are sometimes elected to councils in order to bring in people who can make a real contribution to the work of the council—men and women perhaps would not have the opportunity or flair that my hon. Friend has for the hustings—and in that way very valuable help is given to the work of local government. In addition to that, dare I say that the aldermen, while they play their part in instructing and helping forward the young recruits to local government, also provide a very valuable element in our local government life, namely, the element of continuity and stability which is so necessary in local government as in other things? I feel obliged to say that in view of the onslaught which my hon. Friend has made upon aldermen generally.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I hesitate to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on the question of aldermen, although I believe there is something in his argument; I do not think that it is fair to generalise. For example, in certain areas changes have been made—I believe in London—on the aldermanic bench by reason of changes in the complexion and balance of political parties. I object more than anything to the antiquity of aldermen. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is present and I believe that he would agree with me that the mortality rate on the Surrey County Council aldermanic bench is the highest in any part of the country. They are dying like flies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): I am feeling rather ill myself.

Mr. Walkden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will go on for many years. I have served on parish councils and on urban and borough councils but not on a county council. The belief has been created that you cannot make any change on the aldermanic bench and that once a man is an alderman he is an alderman for the rest of his life. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what generally obtains. I have experience of borough councils up and down the country and I have met these doddering old men, these old fogies, and they really take no part in public life at all. They perform no functions and give no guidance and their judgment is not worth twopence. I do not think we can generalise but we ought to get it into the minds of our young people that the power to change the aldermanic bench is entirely in their hands. If they wish to eliminate certain aldermen, they can do so. It is not an extermination process we wish them to embark upon, but if they wish to bring about a change, they can do it.
As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, I was rather encouraged by the idea adopted by the Lord Chancellor with regard to magistrates. I believe that he has a sort of system in which he puts magistrates upon a reserved list, and disposes of them in one way or another if they do not perform their functions. I do not think that this really ought to be done by Parliament. We should focus attention on the idea that there is a possibility, even now, without further legislation, of changing the aldermanic bench. We should encourage this idea very vigorously throughout the land so as to bring about many changes. There are some young aldermen of 30 or 35 years of age who have learned very much about local government and have given guidance, and whose judgments have been taken notice of in many ways in public life. The antiquity of the aldermen is the cause of most of the trouble, and I believe that the remedy, in the main, is in in the hands of the people.

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull), all we are doing in this Clause is retaining the peace-time law, except that in the period leading up to six months before the election, co-option will continue. The existing law is that vacancies within six months of an election are not filled unless it


is necessary to do it in order to maintain two-thirds of the council. My hon. Friend has raised the point that the representation of a council might be equal with regard to party balance. That happens sometimes, but I do not think that this, of itself, necessarily affects the position. It may cause that situation.

Mr. Bull: Has not the right hon. Gentleman now a good opportunity to remedy that defect?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that it is real. This might cause the situation, but the situation might also arise otherwise. I have met it sometimes after an election and have had to give advice about it. It is a nasty tangle but somehow the question of who is to have a majority on a council gets solved, sometimes by the Mayor. I do not think that it would be easy to solve it by this Bill, and I do not know what the solution is. With regard to aldermen, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), have a vested interest. I am an alderman and so is my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, and in fact we seem to be well provided for in Committee to-day.

Mr. Pritt: Do not let us have arguments ad persona.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. and learned Member cannot say anything—he has never been an alderman. I will not say whether he ought to be or not. Let me express a personal view about it, and I hope that I shall not get across my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. My own personal view is that, if it is properly used, the aldermanic institution is valuable. If it is properly used, the institution of co-opted members on committees is valuable, within limitations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) that in the great majority of cases the aldermanic institution is wrongly used, and it is wrongly used through some theory of democracy—a mechanical theory of democracy which is all nonsense. It is wrongly used because the councils are trying to meet, I think, the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and therefore, what they, are bound to do is to choose an existing councillor, usually the senior councillor for the ward. In time, he becomes promoted to the aldermanic bench, and that tends to make him an elderly member,

as my hon. Friend says. It is an honour which comes to the senior member of the ward in time according to deaths, vacancies and so on, and once the councillor is made an alderman he tends to be an alderman for life or until the party or somebody encourages him to go off the aldermanic bench, which they do not like to do. That, of course, means that the aldermen were originally elected persons in most cases, having the sanctity of election at some time and then have remained on. In that case you have no practical value out of the aldermanic institution at all, none whatever.

1.30 p.m.

It is always difficult for me to say, "I will now tell you what the London County Council do about it," because I know my provincial friends do not always like it but, with great respect, I believe we did it the right way. The Labour Party did not invent it. I think the Conservatives did it before, and I rather think the Progressives did. We did not promote from within the Council. We deliberately went outside—thereby, of course, being alleged to be undemocratic by some people—but the institution is either for the purpose of going outside or it is not, and I think it is for that purpose. I think the credit for this is probably due to the Progressives, and when they went outside, they said to themselves, "Looking at this body of elected councillors, of what are we short?" When we came in in numbers, we also said to ourselves, and I believe the Conservatives said to themselves, "In what are we deficient? Can we improve the average quality of the elected members of the Council?"

I will tell you what we did in 1919 when we got two Labour aldermen. We were entitled to about one and two-thirds but we got two. That is another thing, by the way—that the aldermen ought to be shared between the parties on the basis of proportional election. We looked at our little Labour Party of about 17 and we said, "We are deficient in expert knowledge of finance." We knew something about finance and we would have found out more, but we needed an expert on finance. We said, "We have not got a lawyer"—that will please the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt)—"and a lawyer will be useful." We got C. J. Matthew, who, I think the hon. and learned Member will agree, was a very


good lawyer. It squared the Progressives because he was a Liberal in transition to the Labour Party, and that was how we got an alderman out of the two-thirds. That is what we did then and have done since — we have brought in either specialists or as competent people as possible and thereby added to the total quality of our party on the public authority, and the others tried to do the same.

I must not go on to co-opted Members of committees but the same principle applies, except that you are training them there in public administration. That is the way that aldermen ought to be used. We always said to them, "You will have six years, and it is ten to one that at the end of the six years you will have to go off and stand for election." In nine cases out of ten they did, and it was good for them. Therefore there was no permanency about the thing at all. That is the right way to use aldermen, and therefore I oppose the abolition of aldermen. I believe this is a good invention, I think it is a good device, and I want to preserve it, but I want the local authorities to get out of this mechanical seniority business and really begin to use the alder-manic institution for the purpose for which it was created by Parliament.

I am sorry to have taken so long, but I have strong feelings about this question, and I thought it was a good opportunity to popularise and advertise my views. I always hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), for whose views I have great respect, but I hope he will do me the honour of considering the arguments I have put to him and see whether they might not modify the perfectly understandable views he has put before the Committee. Having thus delivered myself with fervour, eloquence and conviction, I hope the Committee will allow the Clause to go through.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Annual elections of one-third of councillors.)

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, leave out from beginning, to end of line 3 in page 5, and insert:
(2) All the councillors shall retire on the appropriate date.

I shall have to be brief because my voice will not last very long. I hope that when the limited scope of my Amendment is understood in relation to the rather obscure words used in the Bill, the Amendment will commend itself to a fair section of the Committee. Perhaps I might explain its purpose rather than read a lot of words, although most of the Committee are very much more familiar with the actual working of local government than I am.
We all know, I think, that in most parts of the country—I think it is everywhere outside London—the ordinary borough or district council is elected, so to speak, in stages; that each year one-third of the people go out, and themselves or other persons are elected to take their place. So that you get a measure of continuity instead of, as this House gets, a general election at stated or unstated times. I do not want in the least to interfere with the general operation of that system.
I do not want even to argue whether it is good or bad—those who understand these things better than I do think it is good, and I shall not contest that. I am not sure that I have my years right but the substance of what I want to say is this. Take an ordinary borough council outside London. One-third of its members were elected in 1936 and ought to have gone out in 1939; one-third were elected in 1937 and ought to have gone out in 1940; one-third were elected in 1938 and ought to have gone out in 1941. I think that is right, but if it is not right in substance it is on the lines of the principle. We did not go on with that in wartime—and we could not alter it now if we wanted to do so and I do not suppose we want to do it—but extended the tenure of office of all these people, or of people nominated to take their places when they died or otherwise disappeared, so that we now have very old councils—people who have been acting as councillors for far longer than the electorate selected them to act, and many people were never selected, incidentally, by the electorate at all, though that does not come in as a particular part of the argument.
What are we to do? One would have thought that everybody would have said democratically, "At the first time at which it is convenient to hold an election, turn them all out and select a new


lot; and when you have selected a new lot, re-introduce your system of moving by stages in thirds. You will have an awkward list because they have all been over the time limit and some will be expected to go out in one year or two years, but that difficulty arose when the statutes were first passed and arises when any new borough council is established, and there are all sorts of regulations to deal with that." But what the Bill says is, "Oh, no, the people who were elected in 1936 and ought to have gone out in 1939 will go out"—say, for the sake of argument—"in 1945; people who were elected in 1937 and ought to have gone out in 1940 will not go out in 1945 but in 1946; the people who ought to have gone out in 1941, will go out in 1947." I suggest that is thoroughly undemocratic, and that the fair and proper thing to do is to say, "You have all been there far too long" like, if I may say so without disrespect, this House, "and it is high time you all presented yourselves to the electorate again to see what is to happen." That is the beginning and end of what I intended by my Amendment. The words are a little obscure but I think my Amendment will operate in that way. If the words themselves are improper, of course the Government is well equipped to see that they are put right. This Amendment, Mr. Williams, will, I suppose, also cover the Amendment in my name which comes next but one, and which is a necessary part of this Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I thought that the second Amendment would, for practical purposes, be consequential upon this one, but we could deal with the two Amendments together if it was agreeable to the Committee.

Mr. Pritt: I am much obliged, Mr. Williams. I really should have had the courtesy to ask that at the beginning.

Mr. George Griffiths: I want to oppose this Amendment. It may have some advantages but I think it has greater disadvantages. This applies both to borough councils and to urban district councils when the elections come. If all the councillors retire at the same time, there will be a rare muddle in practically every council. Again, if you sweep everybody off the council at the same

time and all new people come on, that would be a great disadvantage, for you require someone to be left on these councils who knows how to run them. I think that the Clause is best left as it is, that those who should have retired had elections continued, shall retire now. Of course there is also the other part, in which it states that all co-opted members will retire. Co-opted members have not been before the electorate and they will do so at the very first opportunity there is for an election. I know a council which thought that this Bill was an Act and they have already printed the names of the people who have to come off in the November, 1945, elections. There have been two co-opted members out of the three in the ward, so that in that ward everybody will come off at the election—of course they have died more quickly there than they have in the South. I hope therefore that the Government will not accept this Amendment but will leave the Clause as it stands at present.

Mr. Burden: I agree with the hon. Member for Hemsworth. (Mr. G. Griffiths) that to accept this Amendment would be to cause chaos in our local government administration. Important as that point is, there is a point in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to which I must take strong objection. That is the very discourteous and slighting way in which he referred to men and women who have been serving on local governing bodies during this very difficult time, often in a sense of public spirit. Take for example the men and women in our London boroughs and in our blitzed areas, who have carried on week after week under extremely distressing conditions. They were warned and ready, as we all know, if certain things had happened in 1940 to stand at their posts. They received those instructions then, and now at the end of the time, the hon. and learned Member says, "We shall tell them 'You have been there far too long, it is time you went.'" Is that the way in which public service is to be rewarded?

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. I did not say anything of the sort. I did not say, "It is time you went." I said, "It is time you submitted yourselves to the electors."

Mr. Burden: HANSARD will be the judge of that to-morrow. All that I can say


is this: I think it is very poor recompense for the service which men and women have rendered on our local governing bodies in blitzed areas, and so on, for them to be spoken of in that way in this Committee.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Sloan: I would like to support the Amendment because I agree that after such a long period in office it is necessary that people should be called upon to submit themselves to the electors. In county councils members retire at the end of every three years and I have never noticed any serious disruption of their business because of that. It is true that many people have served too long on local authorities, but when we do have elections people ought to submit themselves to the electorate. There is a growing need for drastic changes in local government; that is evident to everybody who has the slightest knowledge of local government affairs. What will happen is that only one-third of the members will submit themselves to the electorate and it will be a further three years before the last of those remaining will go to the electorate. I think that is a mistake. The way in which, at municipal election time, only one-third go out every year and the other two-thirds try to rig the poll is most annoying. Those who have sufficient knowledge of local government will be prepared to say that when an election is held all the members of the council ought to seek re-election.

Mr. Gallacher: This question calls for serious consideration. It is obvious that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) was trying to arouse unnecessary prejudice against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I would remind him that this Bill deals not only with London but with the whole country and that whatever might be true about London and London councillors has no bearing whatever in relation to the great number of councils throughout the country. If an election had taken place in the normal way in London last November there are many councillors who would have been told by the citizens of the various boroughs to get out. But the citizens did not have the chance to tell them and so the councillors remain. In every council throughout the

country there are members now sitting who would have been told in a very peremptory manner to get out if a normal election had taken place.

Mr. Burden: That may be the case with the hon. Member when the next General Election comes along.

Mr. Gallacher: People are more and more demanding elections in order to elect new town councils, just as they are demanding elections to elect new Members of Parliament. When the time comes for the next General Election the electorate will decide whether they will order us to get out or not. Why all this attempt to create feeling or prejudice against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith? This is a job for the electors. All we have to decide is whether the electors will decide in the case of certain councillors, or whether they will have the opportunity of deciding in the case of all councillors. There have been no elections of any kind for a long time. Very undesirable co-options have taken place in many councils, to which attention has been continually drawn. Therefore, electors should have the opportunity of re-electing all councillors or rejecting them. Take the Dissolution of this House, which is a national Assembly, responsible for the affairs of the nation. There is no difficulty about the period between a Dissolution and the meeting of the new House. Is anything disrupted? When you have a position like that you have already made arrangements to cover it. I am certain that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has such a great knowledge of these matters, would not suggest that if a decision was taken to contest all seats on the same day there would be the slightest possibility of the administration of the local authority getting out of control.

Mr. Guy: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that a councillor who is serving in the Forces should offer himself for re-election?

Mr. Gallacher: There is no reason why he should not or why he should not be a member of the council, although he is absent on duty in the Forces. I have been asked by members of councils if they should resign on going into the Forces. I have told them that they should not, that they should keep in contact with the minutes and business of the council, and


with a representative who could put their point of view. If, a local authority felt it necessary to bring back one or two men from the Forces in order to carry on council business then arrangements should be made for that, just as Members of this House make arrangements to resign from the Forces because of the importance of their business. We know all about this cheap nasty attempt to arouse prejudice and how it is being worked. We know the situation that exists between some of these people in London and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith. It is a cheap and nasty attempt to create prejudice, and we should not allow our minds to be biased on this question.

Mr. Pritt: I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been used, or to answer them, because I do not think we should make heavy weather of this. But I want to say just one or two words in reply to the attack which has been made on me. The last thing I expected to hear was that the speech I made was capable of being construed as an attack on borough councils. Why the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) should make a sudden, violent and gratuitously offensive attack on me I do not know, and, frankly, I do not care. I have not the remotest intention of attacking borough councils. In any case it could not apply to borough councils in London, because this Clause has nothing to do with them. They do not go out in shifts. Why it should be thought that I am attacking the councillors of blitzed cities like Sheffield or Bristol by saying that it is time they represented themselves to the electors, why that is poor recompense to them for their work during the war, and that that is a strange way of rewarding people, I do not know. Why I should be accused of making an attack on them by saying that they should give the electors the opportunity of deciding whether they want them or not I do not know, but, anyhow, we live and learn.

The Solicitor-General: I think every aspect of this problem has been examined and I can put, quite shortly, the reason why the Government do not feel able to accept the Amendment. The desire of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) is to have what is usually known as "a

clean sweep" approach at the first election. The other extreme would be the complete retention until the other one-third's retirement. I am sure that he appreciates, although he did not deal with this aspect, that the Clause does not go to the other extreme from the Amendment. It goes to the half-way house—and this is important from the point of view which has just been expressed by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The half-way house is that one third of the Members, that is, those elected in 1936, should retire and that all the co-opted members should retire. The hon. Member for West Fife expressed certain views about co-opted members. Every one is entitled to his views, which must vary in different parts of the country, but whether he is right or wrong all co-opted members will have to face the electors. I think the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith will agree that that is fairly described as the half-way house between the two extreme views.

Mr. Pritt: Half-way from the wrong to the right.

2.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: That is according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's view. The arithmetical result, as far as we have been able to judge it, is that it will produce almost exactly 50 per cent. retirement, so one has the fact that 50 per cent. of all the members, including those co-opted, will retire at the first election. Those who have spoken in favour of the Amendment say that is only half the loaf that they desire. My constituency has a provincial local authority where the annual third system applies and we in the provinces have considerable respect, I might almost say affection, for that system. It has worked well because it provides a certain continuity of administration in a sense rather different from that which the hon. Member for West Fife appeared to have in mind. It is not so much the question of the interregnum between one total council being elected and another total council being elected that we have in mind when we desire the annual third principle. It is the continuity of supervision and co-operation in administration which you get between the members and the officers of a local authority. It is a much more personal and closer relationship and one


which in our experience has produced good results.
That is why we ask for a compromise between the system of a clean sweep and our annual third being retained in the present situation. Bearing in mind the basis of our provincial local government, I think the retention of some continuity—less than usual but some—is a good thing for local administration and we think this compromise between the two systems—a compromise which maintains some continuity on the side of those who like that and which, on the other hand, makes 50 per cent. of the councils face the electorate, including all co-opted members, is a fair compromise and we ask hon. Members, having expressed their views, either to take such step as seems good to them or not to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Gallacher: This argument of continuity would only apply provided you were satisfied that, if a full election took place, all or most of the council were going to be rejected. If all your men were going to be returned the continuity is there. On the other point, it is not enough to say that a co-optee should go to the electors. Surely, if a council is not capable of making a proper co-option, the council as a whole should go before the electors.

The Solicitor-General: On the first point, there is not only the point of whether the councillors would all come back. There is the question whether they would go at that point or whether they themselves would continue with their work as members of the local authority. There are two sides to the medal. There is the side of the electorate and the side of the people who have been engaged in local government. On the second point, I would remind the hon. Member that the electorate get an opportunity of expressing their view of 50 per cent., as far as we can say, of the councillors. It would be dishonest to pretend that I can go the whole way with the hon. Member but I suggest that this compromise between two possible views is one which gives the electorate a fair chance of expressing its views.

Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Sub-section.
This Amendment is anticipatory of a new Clause which will be moved later on. Originally we had this provision dealing with the first election for charter boroughs but, instead of that, we are having a new Clause which will deal with all the different problems of different degrees. For example, there are charter boroughs and boroughs which have only had one meeting, and there are boroughs which have had redistribution of wards and various problems, and we think the general provision contained in the new Clause is a better method of dealing with it. Therefore, we delete the specific provision dealing with charter boroughs.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at end, insert new Sub-section:
(7) Nothing in this Section shall affect any power of His Majesty to create new boroughs, or any power to make Orders in Council or Orders conferred by the following provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, that is to say—

(a) Section twenty-five (which relates to the division of a borough into wards and the alteration of the number of councillors or wards or boundaries);
(b) the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-five (which provides for the rotation in thirds provision being replaced as respects a district council by the provisions of that Act requiring the retirement of the whole council in every third year);
(c) Section thirty-seven (which relates to the division of an urban district into wards);
(d) Sub-section (2) of Section thirty-eight (which relates to the number of rural district councillors to be elected by the several rural parishes);
(e) Part VI (which relates to the alteration of areas);

and any such Order in Council or Order may exclude or vary the provisions of this Section to the like extent as it may exclude or vary the rotation in thirds provision.

Various parts of the Local Government Act, 1933, are mentioned in the Amendment, and these refer to the making of Orders altering the boundaries of wards and the constitution of local authorities. They can be made only when Section 6 of the Local Elections Act, 1939, is repealed by this Act and it is desired that they should be made without being tied to the rotation in thirds principle. For example, if an Order is made early in


1946 for altering all the wards of a borough, it might well be desired that the election in 1946 should not be for a third but for the whole number. We want to be able to provide for that. I think the Amendment meets in another connection somewhat the point which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) had in mind and, in order to leave the Home Secretary free, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10—(Town council elections in Scotland.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, in page 10, line 11, after "and," to insert:
his place shall be filled by the electors and he.
This is a purely drafting Amendment. I think the Clause as it stands is perfectly intelligible but, comparing its wording with that of other Sections in Acts of Parliament which deal with the same matter, it would be better to put in these words in order to make the phraseology in all these Sections the same, and it is for that purpose alone and not to alter the sense of the Clause that I move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11—(Qualification for membership of councils in Scotland.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, leave out "(4) or (5)" and insert "or (4)".
This is to remedy a slip in drafting. The reference that we seek to leave out is one to a Sub-section of an Act of Parliament which was repealed some years ago, and, therefore, it ought not to appear.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Registers which are to be in force for local government and Parliamentary elections.)

Captain Cobb: I beg to move, in page 11, line 43, to leave out "fifteenth" and to insert "first".
I move this Amendment, to bring into Order five other Amendments which cover the same point. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took all together.

The Deputy-Chairman: I gather that they are largely consequential. I think we might take them together.

Captain Cobb: The object of the Amendment is to have the register published on 1st October instead of 15th. The view has been expressed for many years past by members of all parties that publication of the register on 15th October allows far too little time to enable candidates at local government elections to get into touch with the electorate before the date of the municipal elections on 1st November. The Amendment will give candidates and party organisers a further fortnight in which to allow for the necessary communications to be made.

2.15 p.m.

I understand that this point has been raised on many occasions, and the official answer has always been that an alteration in the existing law would be needed in order to effect the change. It seems to me that, since under this Bill we are proposing to fix annual registers, this is a suitable opportunity for raising the matter and for making this necessary alteration. It will meet the views of many persons who are experienced in local government elections. To nobody can that description be more adequately applied than the Home Secretary, who has played an important part in local government, both as organising secretary of the London Labour Party for many years and as a prominent member of the London County Council. Those of us who have worked in local government have always thought that it is very unfortunate that, generally speaking, the percentage of electors who go to the poll at municipal elections is so small. I have no doubt that one contributing factor to the small polls is that candidates have so short a time to make the necessary communications with the electors whom they seek to represent. I hope that the Government will see their way to make this alteration, which will mean that there will be a month's interval between the publication of the register and the date of the municipal election.

Mr. Craik Henderson: This is a matter which affects all


parties equally. It is ridiculous that the register, which is to the advantage of those conducting the election, should be produced at such a late date that full advantage cannot be taken of it. If my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is accepted, it will mean that there will be an interval of a month instead of 14 days as at present. In a great many towns arrangements are made by courtesy to have the register produced on 1st October, and there is no reason why it should not be produced on that date and why it should not be made statutory. Many wards have 20,000 electors, and if there are only 14 days in which to prepare canvass cards and so on it means that the efforts of people who are trying to conduct their campaigns and to get as many electors as possible to go to the poll are rendered abortive. The register is produced with the object of having the information in it made available to the public, and I cannot think why 1st October should not be made statutory. If some Act of Parliament stands in the way it should be got out of the way. I hope that the Government will give consideration to this request, which I know is desired by everyone in every party who has to deal with this problem. Local elections are difficult enough, and the Committee should see that they are not made more difficult.

The Solicitor-General: I will gladly accede to the request of my hon. Friend that the Government will give this point consideration. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the feeling with which both speeches were made, and he will have an opportunity of reading them himself. I would like to put to the Committee the position as the Home Office understood it before this Amendment was proposed. October 15th was the date for the publication of the annual register under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, as amended, and the Home Office have received no other representations in favour of departing from this well-established rule. To-day we have had the speeches of my hon. Friends, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) said that there was considerable feeling on this point. In these circumstances, I think the Committee will agree that it is proper for me, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to say that we will consider the matter. We will consider the special difficulties which are

bound to exist in 1945 and the reactions of this change on the other parts of the somewhat complicated machinery which it has been necessary to bring into operation. I cannot go any further, and I hope that, on that undertaking to consider the point, my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment.

Captain Cobb: I do understand that in 1945 there are likely to be exceptional difficulties in getting suitable people for making up the register, but I do not believe that that reason will exist after 1945. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will make adequate representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that, at any rate after 1945, this change will be made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(May 1945 register.)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, leave out "beginning of the said month of March," and insert:
Sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-five.
As this Clause stands, very little time is to be given to persons who may be qualified to use the business vote to send in applications to the registration officer to be included in the special business premises register. Statutory Rules and Orders 1944 No. 900 were approved by this House last autumn. Paragraph 6 refers to the fact that on the initiation of an election the registration officer has to publish a notice inviting applications for registration in the business premises register, and the Order goes on to say that this notice shall contain instructions as to the mode in which these applications should be made and the time limit within which they have to be made. In the time-table in the Second Schedule to the Statutory Rules and Orders, the last date on which applications can be received is the 14th day after the initiation of the election, while the business premises register is required to be published on the 36th day after the initiation of the election. In other words, there is an interval of 22 days between the final date on which an application can be lodged and the date of the publication of the register. That compares in the case of this Bill with a period of no less than 67


days. I cannot see the reason for this much longer interval. Therefore, I suggest that the last date for which applications for the business premises register can be received should be 16th April. I feel that this alteration is only fair to the men and women who will be involved; they are particularly busy; they are harassed because of shortage of staff in their businesses; and they have to deal with many other questionnaires, forms and so on. There will possibly be only two or three weeks to enable them to carry out the procedure laid down in Statutory Rules and Orders, because I do not see how this Bill will become an Act very much before 1st March, which is the qualifying date. I hope that in the interests of these people the Government will make some concession along the lines of my Amendment.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. I may be somewhat deaf, but I did not, Mr. Williams, hear you put the Question that Clause 12 stand part. I wanted to raise a matter on that Question which I cannot raise in any other way. I think you proceeded to Clause 13 without putting the Question on Clause 12.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sure that I put the Question that Clause 12 stand part, and I have now gone on to Clause 13.

Major Neven-Spence: I wish to support the Amendment, which will ensure that electors who may be qualified to use the business vote are given adequate time for lodging their applications to be included on the business premises register. The long period of 67 days will elapse between the last date on which applications can be made and the publication of the register, and that seems to be an unconscionable long time.

The Lord Advocate: This is undoubtedly a substantial point, because it is highly desirable that, if a franchise is to be conferred at all, there should be adequate opportunity for claiming one's rights. The only reason why I cannot promise to meet the point in the way suggested in the Amendment is a practical one of the time-table. It is true that nine weeks or more will elapse between the final date for claiming under this Bill and the publication of the register, and that a

much shorter period was contemplated under the Regulations which are at present in force. The matter has been carefully examined from the practical point of view of what are the shortest periods that we can rely upon as being sufficient to enable returning officers and others to carry out their duties properly. We are satisfied that the periods under the existing Regulations are wholly inadequate for a General Election taking place in present circumstances of man-power difficulties, printing difficulties and all the other factors with which hon. Members are familiar.
We have looked into this matter to see what are the shortest periods that we feel it would be safe to put forward as adequate in present circumstances for a General Election. We think that it is necessary to allow a considerable number of days, possibly nearly a fortnight, for arranging the material once it is received and before it is sent to the printers. It must be arranged in order of streets, or whatever is the order adopted in a particular constituency. Printing is one of the major difficulties in this affair, and it would be unsafe to allow less than a fortnight for printing the initial lists.
The period for claims and objections under existing legislation is much too short to enable the necessary business to be done properly and adequately. We think that three weeks for claims and objections is about as short a time as will allow that rather difficult business—if there are many claims and objections—to be coped with satisfactorily. Finally, there is, of course, the final printing, before the register is made public.
Therefore we are advised that the period taken in the Bill, from 1st March to 7th May, is the shortest that we can safely say is adequate in present circumstances for the performance of those duties; but I think I can meet my hon. and gallant Friend in one way. He referred to the possibility that this Bill might not become an Act of Parliament until some date in February. If you could make your claim only after the Bill became law, then every day that the Royal assent to the Bill was postponed would mean a day less for claiming. We propose to make it clear that claims may be sent in any day in February, from the 1st to the 28th. That will give a full month for the submission of these claims.


If the present law is not adequate to allow that, we shall see that it is put right before the Report stage. There are forms at present in circulation, and no doubt the publicity arising from this Amendment will bring it home to people that they should begin at once making their arrangements. If they have a full month in which to put in their claims we think that that will be adequate.
I would draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the fact that under the existing legislation there is only a fortnight for claims and that that period will now be increased to a month. If we make it clear that claims can be received at any time during February I think we have really gone a very long way to meet what I agree is a substantial point.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the assurance just given by the Lord Advocate, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, after "and," insert:
subject to the provisions of this Act as to making applications on a form of service declaration and to any electoral registration regulations extending these provisions to war workers abroad.
It is intended in one of the new Clauses with regard to postal voting, to have another way of making application to be registered on the business premises register. Therefore one must at this stage mention the fact that there will, we hope, be further provisions, and that we shall be enacting mandatory provisions in regard to Clause 13.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 38, after "and," insert "subject as aforesaid."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cobb: On a point of Order. Are you not calling my Amendment, Mr. Williams? It is, in page 13, line 34, at end, insert:
The names of business premises electors comprised in the May, nineteen hundred and forty-five, register shall remain in the annual register for nineteen hundred and forty-five without further claim being made by such electors.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. I thought it was covered by an earlier Amendment. If the point has not been covered it can be raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cobb: I wanted to raise the point about the requirement under the Bill for persons with business premises qualifications to register twice. As the Committee are aware, the Act of 1943 made it incumbent for the first time upon people with these qualifications to make a claim to be included in the register. Before 1943, no such requirement was made. The effect of the Bill will be to require business voters to go through the performance twice of getting a form and filling it up, in order to be included in the two 1945 registers. They will have to apply by 28th February and by 31st July. I sought, by means of the Amendment which I had on the Order Paper and which has not been called, to persuade the Government to do what is necessary to allow the application for the main register to suffice for inclusion in the 1946 register.
I should be very glad if the Solicitor-General would give some assurance to satisfy us that these very much overworked and understaffed persons will not be put to altogether unnecessary trouble about getting their names on the register. I know there is a difference of opinion as to whether people with these qualifications should be allowed to vote or not, but the fact is that they have that right under the existing law and everything possible should be done to ensure that they get on to the register and are enabled to exercise their rights.

The Solicitor-General: I think I can give my hon. and gallant Friend some assurance on this point. I do not think that the suggestion in his Amendment would be practicable. The qualifying date for the annual register is 30th June, and the fact that someone was on the register on 7th May would not, of course, be conclusive evidence that they were on the register on 30th June. In these times we cannot simply take it that the fact that someone has been on the register on 7th May is, ipso facto, an application for being on the annual register.
It is impossible, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, to have the usual canvasses to which we were accustomed in the past. His point would be substantially met by


administrative action in this way: we hope to ensure that registration officers will, in respect of the October business premises register, send a claim form to every person at his qualifying address on the main business premises register. No doubt my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates that everyone on the May register will get a claim form for the October register and should send it in. I hope he will consider that by that administrative action we are meeting the point; and I hope that the Committee will now let the Clause pass.

Mr. McKinlay: The point that I desire to raise concerns my own constituency, where houses have been requisitioned. The requisition compensation is based on the assessed rent, but the premises no longer exist, although the requisition compensation is being paid yearly as if the premises did exist. I want to know what is the position of my constituents who were evicted from the premises and who are being compensated on the basis of their rateable value. The Government refuse to de-requisition something which does not exist because the only way in which they can do so is to compensate the lot. I want to know whether those two or three dozen of my constituents who have been treated in this way will be electors in the county of Dumbarton or whether they will not.
The premises are requisitioned. In the eyes of the local authorities the premises still exist, but they are not there. I want to know whether, my constituents having been compulsorily removed from the area and their premises being gone, votes will be given so long as this requisition lasts for the premises which used to be on those sites? Not being a lawyer I do not suppose I should be able to answer the question, but the answer means a very great deal, if not to my constituents at least to those who represent them, and I should like the Lord Advocate to give us some enlightenment on the point. Some parts of my division are simply bristling with these difficulties and I am sure that other hon. Members, whose constituencies are in the same position, would like to have the position clarified.

The Lord Advocate: I think I understand what my hon. Friend has in mind. Let me see whether I can state it accurately. He will no doubt put me right if I have not got the position correct. It is the case of a person residing in a house

which has become uninhabitable. That person has had to move away to some other constituency.

Mr. McKinlay: Perhaps the Lord Advocate will forgive me for interrupting. Let us get it right at the very beginning. The premises were habitable. As a matter of fact they were very desirable habitations. The military came along and requisitioned the premises. They fixed the compensation as payable yearly on the rateable value. The War Office did not requisition the premises for fun but to knock them down and drive a road through where the premises were situated. The requisition did not cover only dwelling-houses but lands contiguous to them, all the outbuildings and everything else. In one area at least 12 of my voters in Dumbartonshire have been compensated because of this qualification, on the basis of their rateable value, just as though the premises were still there. I want to know whether they are right in assuming that the registration officer will be as daft as the War Office by granting a vote for premises which do not exist.

The Lord Advocate: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is desirous that his constituents should get the votes that are available to them. I can answer his question in this way; there are two classes of vote—the residential vote and the business premises vote. So far as residence is concerned, if you are not there you do not get the vote, whether you went away because the Government requisitioned your house, or because the house was destroyed by enemy action, or for some private reason of your own. It does not matter. The fact that you are not there prevents you from having a residential vote. If my hon. Friend's constituents were relying upon getting a residential vote in Dumbartonshire, I am afraid that the answer is that if they have gone away, they cannot have it. So far as the business vote is concerned, I must confess that the point is a new one to me and I am not at all clear if one can be in occupation of business premises which no longer exist or which have been taken over by the War Office. There is very grave doubt that even the business vote would not be available, but I should like to be able to consider the point before I give an answer. I am quite sure that the residential vote is not available if the people had moved out before the qualifying date.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: Am I to take it that if the residential vote is no longer available, there is no prospect of another Government Department coming along and saying that as the rateable value has disappeared, so does the compensation? I admit that it is an absurd position. Members from North of the Tweed are bound to be confronted with this position. Suppose that those people pitched a camp in what was their garden and were waiting there until their premises are restored, how would they be ruled out? What I am really after is this. I hope this statement will make the Government see that they themselves have created anomalies from one end of the country to the other, and that they are the only ones who can remove them.

Question, "That Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Annual register under this Act.)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 43, at end, add:
(6) Every electoral register shall be printed on one side of the paper only and shall, wherever possible be arranged in street order and not alphabetically.
This may seem a small point to bring up but we have had a great many detailed points raised, so I do not apologise for this, because it has quite far-reaching consequences. As hon. Members know, electoral registers are sometimes printed on both sides of the paper, sometimes on one side. I have never been able to find out on what basis that has been decided, but for the purposes of canvassing it is much more convenient to have the registers printed on one side only. One can then cut up a register and stick it in an exercise book. Then one has on one side the street and all the electors in it, and on the other side a blank for making notes. When the register is printed on both sides of the paper two registers have to be bought, which wastes a lot of paper and the money of the parties concerned. I think it would be a great convenience if it were laid down that all registers should be printed on one side of the paper only.
With regard to the question of the register being arranged alphabetically, it is the custom in cities and towns, where the houses are in streets, for registers to be arranged in street order, but in

scattered country villages, where houses are not so arranged, the electors are arranged alphabetically, with their address after their names. One sometimes finds cases of quite big villages where the register is arranged alphabetically, which is a very great nuisance when one comes to canvass. I would like to see it laid down that wherever possible the arrangement should be by street order. There is another point. Under the Act of 1943 I believe it was recognised that the registers would not be printed but should be duplicated. Talking to one returning officer about this Act which we are now considering, I found he was under the impression that it would be possible, under this Act, to duplicate the May, 1945, register, and not have it printed. I want it to be stressed that these registers are to be printed and not duplicated.
Why should I waste the time of the Committee in asking for something to be put in the Bill just for the sake of making canvassing easier? It is for this reason: However well conducted a campaign may be, however eloquent the speakers concerned, speeches made in halls never reach more than 10 per cent. of the electorate. The other 90 per cent. can only be contacted by knocking on people's doors and talking to them. It seems to me that if democracy is to work at all we should make it as easy as possible for people to do that essential work of canvassing.

Mr. Oldfield: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). From the point of view of saving work so far as the workers at elections are concerned, it is a step in the right direction. The hon. Member's point that the register should be arranged in street order is a good one. One knows as an election agent what one has to do if one has any persons coming into a division to help and one is asking them to go out on a certain street order. It would be much more easy if this system was adopted. I remember being concerned in a by-election, I think in Lancaster. In some of the villages there the register was issued in the order mentioned by the hon. Member for Skipton, and my first job was to get a typewriter and do it all over again to make the work easier. I say that the method proposed of compiling the register would, from the point


of view of the country districts, be a much better one, and I support the hon. Member for Skipton.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate very much the matters that are in the minds of both my hon. Friends in supporting this Amendment. Indeed they the in the minds of all of us who have had to deal with the practical side of electioneering. There is only one point I should like both my hon. Friends to remember. It is that electioneering varies very much with different kinds of constituencies, and therefore I think it is a good thing to keep the plans as flexible as possible and able to deal with these different constituencies and their circumstances. If we take the first point of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson), that is, the matter of printing on one side of the paper or both. That would be dealt with in the ordinary way by electoral registration regulations, but I do not want to burke the issue by putting it in that way, because I would like my hon. Friend to consider a further point. At present it is open to the registration officer to say whether the registers shall be printed on one side of the paper or on both. I should have thought—I ask my hon. Friend to consider it—that that would be the best way to deal with the matter. In that case the registration officer could let my hon. Friend—I take him for the example, but it would apply to anyone in the position he postulated, who wanted some copies for canvassing and pasting on in the way with which we are all familiar—could go to the registration officer and say he wanted a number for that purpose. Other copies printed on both sides might be capable of being used for other purposes. I suggest it is a matter which might be left by the regulations for the registration officer to decide.
I come to my hon. Friend's second point, with which both my hon. Friends have dealt, that is, street order or alphabetical order. There again it has been left by the regulations to the local authority, and it is interesting to note that the onus was placed differently, under the Act of 1918, in regard to country and urban districts. In regard to country districts the register was to be arranged in alphabetical order unless the local authority, having regard to the general character of the area, con-

sidered its arrangement in street order to be possible and convenient. With regard to boroughs the register had to be in street order unless the local authority thought the other method was convenient. I would commend to both my hon. Friends that that is really a reasonable method of dealing with the matter, that the local authority should be left with this task and that we should not attempt over-centralisation in this field when we have found that devolution, in one case the registration officer, in the other the local authority, has worked well and substantially without complaint. Therefore, while sympathising with the point which both my hon. Friends have in mind, I would ask them, in view of what I have placed before them, not to press this Amendment.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the second point put by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) as to whether it will be legal to have these registers roneoed, because a roneoed register can look an awful mess after the first few copies have been made?

Mr. H. Morrison: It was a practical point in connection with the Act of 1943. The printing trade was disorganised, there were by-elections coming on, and there might be a by-election in a rural county division where there would be the greatest practical difficulty in printing the register. In such a case it was contemplated that we should have to multigraph the register. I hope we shall not have to do it as I agree that printing is better, but it is just conceivable that in some cases we may be driven to it. So far as the Home Office is concerned, our preference is definitely for printing, and we should only multigraph in cases in which we were driven to do so by practical considerations.

Mr. H. Lawson: The Solicitor-General has not met the point I made. He said that it is open for the candidate to ask the registration officer to print him some copies of the register on one side of the paper only. I think that is quite an impractical suggestion. These registers have to be made out at a certain time of the year, and a man may have no idea that he is to contest a particular constituency. Once the registers are printed, there is no question of a candidate making


such a request and feeling he will get any satisfaction about special printing. I think that point has not been met. As regards the question of leaving the matter, it is now left to the convenience of local authorities. What is the test of convenience? As I understand it, these registers, even under this new Act we are passing, are to be made up from lists which are kept in the food office. The May, 1945, register will be made up from those lists.
Surely the most convenient thing for the local authorities to do is just to take these cards, which are kept in alphabetical order, and print a list. This Amendment makes it quite clear that, where this cannot be managed, the list will be printed alphabetically. I want further consideration to be given to this, and I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to ask the Minister, or Ministers, whether they would consider undertaking to circularise local authorities and to impress upon them the very great convenience that arises in most areas—not all, of course—from the arrangement of streets in walking order, or whatever one calls it. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson), local authorities are not all efficient; many of them will take the easiest course because they are not fighting the election—they are not suffering the trouble and bother. I do not want to pamper Members of Parliament, or even people who want to be Members, but it would make a tremendous difference in the work involved.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Hugh Lawson) is obviously bursting for a Division, in which case there is no point in being conciliatory to him, but if it will meet his wish and that of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) I will see whether there is anything the Home Office can do, by administrative action, to meet the point. The real trouble is that there are villages, as hon. Members will agree, where, quite frankly, one does not know whether it is a street or an accidental conglomeration of houses, and in those cases the alphabetical list would be the right one. Sometimes it is not easy to make a clear discrimination,

but I have every sympathy, as has the Solicitor-General, with what the hon. Member for Skipton is getting at, and if he will leave it at that we will look into it and consider whether we can give such advice to registration officers, with a view to getting the maximum degree of sense into the matter, I will do that. I will certainly consider that and see what can be done, and I trust that, having said these reasonable words, my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to bother the Committee with a Division.

Mr. H. Lawson: I was not going to bother the Committee with a Division. In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir E. Findlay: I would like to ask the Home Secretary one or two questions in regard to multigraphing and printing the registers. The first is whether printers can only take on such a job with the staff they have available and whether, if they have staff available for such a rush job—which will take two or three months—it will presumably mean that they have had more men than they needed in the last few years. Furthermore, there is to be a considerably greater call up, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make quite certain, before this Bill becomes law, that we are not leading the electorate up the garden path—to put it in a commonplace way—and that he can fulfil the promises which he is making in regard to the registers.
For example, the printing of a new register in Edinburgh and the surrounding constituencies requires a column 1,000 yards long. The only people who can set that type are expert type-setters, and they are not to-day with the printers. They have been directed to other jobs. I am under the impression—and I know the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that he has given a general direction that, where possible, men shall be returned from other war-time employment to printers for the few weeks or months required to print the registers. The difficulty is that they have been given no promise that they will go back to their original war-time job, which means that for a few weeks they will go from, say, the South of England, to printers in Edinburgh to


do this job, after which they will be returned to the pool, and from the pool they may be sent to, say, Stockport. In such cases, they would have to move their families and make a new home for the rest of the war. I suggest that that is not going to get volunteers for the printing industry.
The other point is that when the Home Secretary was making his preliminary suggestion in regard to printing these registers, he proposed that they should be printed at ordinary rates. As 99 per cent. will be printed as overtime, it is surely reasonable that he should meet the employers and, if necessary, the employees' unions, to see that a fair rate is paid for work which is obviously of national importance. There will be enormous labour trouble unless the right hon. Gentleman clarifies the position at a very early date and makes certain, in his own mind, that the regulations which he will frame will give plenty of time for these registers to be printed with the limited staffs available.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not disguise from the Committee that the physical problem of the printing of these registers is going to be very considerable. It will be very difficult, but I think we shall manage it all right. That is my first observation. My second is that we shall have to manage it all right. If there is an election, it must be conducted in a proper manner, and there must be registers for it. I agree it is going to be difficult owing to the unavoidable upset which has taken place in the printing industry throughout the length and breadth of the land. We have been in consultation with His Majesty's Stationery Office and also with the Master Printers' Federation, the printing trade unions, the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society, so that we have sought to get the co-operation of all the elements of the printing industry, including the newspaper people, and I think they are all willing to give us the greatest possible help.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) that some trouble about wages, and so on, will arise. The Government's Fair Wages Clause ought to take care of it and, in any case, we will try to be fair about that, and I recognise that the registers may be more expensive to produce now than in peace time. With regard to the matter of a

man coming back to print the registers and then going into the Ministry of Labour pool and being sent where he is required, I understand from my hon. Friend's point that he would like the man to be able to go back to the job from whence he immediately came. That, of course, is a Ministry of Labour point rather than a Home Office one, but I take notice of it and will raise it with the Ministry of Labour.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I ought to have intervened before. We must not develop that point any further.

Mr. Morrison: In that case I can say no more, but I hope from what I have said that my hon. Friend will realise that I am conscious of his points and will do all I can to meet them.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Extension of time for registration of prisoners of war.)

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 16, line 39, leave out, "before the initiation of the election," and insert:
four clear days at least before the day fixed for nomination.
The Committee may remember that on the Second Reading I indicated that, notwithstanding the difficulties, the Government wished, and we were sure that the House would wish, to do everything possible to enable the Service-man who is now a prisoner of war to vote. This Amendment is designed to secure a longer period for the registration of prisoners of war. As printed, the Bill requires the prisoner of war's declaration to be received by the Registration Officer before the initiation of the election, which, under the 1943 Act, should come five and a half weeks before nomination. In the case of fixed registers, under the present Bill, the qualifying date for registration would be even earlier. This all tends, of course, against giving the prisoner of war an opportunity of voting. The Amendment secures that the prisoner of war may be registered up to less than a fortnight before the date of the poll. It is a special concession for the prisoner of war, who will presumably come back to this country, and we hope by this Amendment to get on to the effective


register of electors a far greater number of prisoners of war than would otherwise be possible. I am sure that the Committee will feel sympathetic, and I hope that the Amendment will be given approval.

Mr. Turton: I should like to thank the Home Secretary for this Amendment. This Amendment was recommended by the Conference on Postal Voting, and it does, in fact, bring the prisoner of war into the same position as the Service-man in his application for postal voting. Will the Home Secretary tell us how he is going to let prisoners of war in Germany and the Far East know of this concession? It is all-important that they should be advised that directly they are repatriated they will have this opportunity to register, and told how long that opportunity will continue. Is the Home Secretary getting in touch with the War Office, or with the Red Cross Society, who might well give this information in their Red Cross bulletins that go out to the prisoners of war? I regard this as a matter of great importance. It will apply not so much to men who have become prisoners of war in recent months as to men who were taken prisoner at Calais, Boulogne, Dunkirk, St. Valerie, and in the early stages of the war in Africa, who had not had the opportunity to make declarations under the former Acts. Could the Minister let us know what steps are being taken to let these men know how they can exercise their votes?

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment is very nearly the same as that on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and I think the hon. Gentleman has said all that he would be able to say on his own Amendment; so there will be no need for me to call that Amendment.

Mr. Turton: That is so.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I ought to have mentioned that my hon. Friend has an Amendment down dealing with this point. We have considered the problem he has mentioned, and whether anything could be done to register these people while they were still prisoners of war; but, of course, the postal facilities are somewhat congested, and the men are much more anxious to

get letters from their relatives and friends than on matters of this kind. I am afraid that neither the Nazis or the Japanese are altogether appreciative of our gentle processes of democracy, and that they would not be very co-operative. So we came to the conclusion that we could not do anything in that way. The War Office have arranged, however, that at the reception centres, to which the prisoners will go from their captivity, that they shall be immediately informed of the facilities available, and there will also be arrangements to ensure that directly the men come into British hands the machinery can start to function, with a view to their registration. I, therefore, think that my hon. Friend and the Committee can take it that everything possible will be done to help the men, and to enable them to be registered, and to vote with the greatest possible simplicity and completeness.

Captain Cobb: Will the War Office deal with all Services?

Mr. Morrison: I spoke of the War Office because my hon. Friend mentioned it, but I imagine that the other Service Departments will do the same, in so far as they are capable of doing so. I am a little cautious about that, because the Navy may have special problems. But I will follow the matter up with the other Service Departments, and I have no doubt that they will do it, so far as it is practicable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Preparation of registers and appeals from registration officer.)

Captain Cobb: I beg to move, in page 17, leave out lines 27 to 30.
My purpose in moving this Amendment is really to ask for information. I want to know why the Service register is not to appear, in what is, in effect, draft form, on 31st August, along with the annual register. As the Committee is aware, two months, August and September, are given for persons excluded from the register to make claims to be included in the annual register. No doubt, there is some good administrative reason why this two months' grace is not to be allowed to men and women on the Service register, and I should be very much obliged if my right hon. Friend would tell me what that


reason is. It seems unfortunate, on the face of it, that these persons on the Service register are not to have the same advantages as the ordinary civilian population.

The Solicitor-General: I am greatly obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me the opportunity of explaining why this provision does not apply to the Service electors' list. If the Service electors' list is published, it, of course, becomes open to claims and objections. As regards an objection, it is essential for a registration officer to send a copy of the notice to the voter concerned. It would be quite impracticable to operate this procedure at a time when the bulk of the persons entered on the Service register will be serving at a distance from this country.
My hon. and gallant Friend will note that we do provide for the publication of the Service list in regard to the annual register for 1946, and that is on the assumption that, at that time, the number of Service voters will be substantially diminished and the procedure will be a good deal easier. I think I have quite shortly explained to my hon. and gallant Friend the point which he so rightly raised.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand from the Solicitor-General that, in 1946, he will know the addresses of the Service voters?

The Solicitor-General: I said that I hoped that things would be a great deal easier. I do not think I need descend to details, but I think that is on a general assumption which it is fair to make, and we have proceeded on that basis and hope to be able to publish the list. If we are taking an over-optimistic view of the matter, we shall have to come to the House, but that is the view which we think is justified by the facts.

Mr. Turton: I am sorry, but I do not think I am stressing a point of detail. As I understand it, under the existing law the returning officer has no opportunity of knowing the address of a Service voter. Are the Government contemplating a change of the law in that respect to provide, in 1946, that the returning officer will know the address of the Service voter, so that he can tell him when his claim is objected to? This is a matter of considerable importance to Servicemen.

The Solicitor-General: As I said, it is hoped that the number of Service voters will be substantially diminished. If the Service voter has come back here, then it ought to be more possible to find out where he lives. I am afraid that, beyond that, I am still not clear on the point which is troubling my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am only too anxious to help, and if he will communicate either with me or with my right hon. Friend, I shall willingly go into the matter further. The Amendment before the Committee is with regard to the position in 1945, and I think I have satisfied him in regard to that, and if the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will elaborate his point a little further, or would care to put it in writing, we shall consider it and see if we can help him.

Captain Cobb: I would like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation that he has given, which seems to me, so far as the 1945 register is concerned, to be completely adequate, if I may say so, for the reasons he gave. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Amendment as to redistribution of seats.)

Mr. H. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out lines 39 and 40, and insert "five."
As the Clause stands, the Boundary Commissions which will review all boundaries will come into operation on 15th October, 1946, unless the Secretary of State decides to bring the date forward a year or put it back a year. The object of my Amendment is to lay it down that the Boundary Commissions are to come into operation in October, 1945. I think that there is sufficient time to get the thing going by then, and I am rather afraid that, if the Bill is left as it is and if the Commissions are not set up until 1947, any redistribution that they may recommend will not have actually been carried out before the General Election after the coming one. I suggest that we ought to bring the date forward and I have therefore put this Amendment down.

The Lord Advocate: I think I am right in saying that, under the Bill as it stands, the Boundary Commissions are to start in 1946 on their ordinary work, unless Parliament either ante-dates or post-dates it in the light of the circumstances at the time. The hon. Member desires that they should start in 1945, whether the circumstances are right or not. The reason why we do not think that is a good thing is that we think that the population will not have settled down by this autumn, and that it would really be wasted labour for the Boundary Commissions to start drawing boundaries on this year's annual register, because the probability is that the shifts of population in many areas would be such that they would have to do it all over again next year. Therefore, it would probably be desirable to wait another year, but, if things settle down quicker than we anticipate, we keep power to ante-date it to 1945, which is the year which the hon. Member desires. With that explanation, I hope he will agree that we have been wise in keeping this flexibility.

Mr. Lawson: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, at end, add:
(4) The boundary commissions shall also review as soon as may be the boundaries of wards used in local government elections.
It seems to me that there is just as big a case for a permanent Commission to review ward boundaries in local government constituencies as there is in Parliamentary constituencies. At the beginning of this war, there were very great anomalies. Some councillors represented a few constituents and some a great number, and war conditions have, I believe, made that very much worse—for instance, where bomb damage has taken place in the middle of a large city. Some wards have scarcely any local government electors at all, and there may be modern "rotten boroughs" with two or three local government electors only. What I am suggesting is that, as soon as it is reasonable and practicable, these Boundary Commissions—or I do not mind if other Boundary Commissions are set up—should go into the whole business of the constant review of ward boundaries, so that it is not left to the initiative of

the local authority, as, I believe, is the position to-day.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid my hon. Friend is becoming an over-centraliser and tending to bureaucracy in these matters. I do not think that, in the case of the wards within a municipal area, it is desirable to bring in the heavy-handed machinery of the Boundary Commissions, nationally established. Under the law as it stands, the official initiative in changing boundaries comes from the local authority itself. I think that is right. So far as the people are concerned, the electors or the political parties, if they want their boundaries changed, can agitate and put pressure on the local authority, or they can complain to the appropriate Minister, who may raise it with the local authority. They have got means of pressure which they can use. On the whole, it is best to leave the initiative to the local authority, and not bring some vast Boundary Commission of the State down to some urban district or non-county borough and say, "Well, gentlemen, what about these wards of yours? We are going to have a look at them."

3.30 p.m.

Let us preserve the health and initiative of British local government and not have this national centralisation overdone, with goodness knows what results. I am surprised at my hon. Friend, who I thought was on the healthy left of democracy, now putting himself on the right of a regimented democracy, which, frankly, offends my Socialist soul. I therefore hope he will withdraw the Amendment and say that he is sorry he thought of it.

Mr. H. Lawson: Surely the Home Secretary would agree that there is more than a normal problem in this matter, with the war conditions, and the disturbance which has taken place. The Government should give some lead to local authorities in this matter. I agree with him that, if all local authorities were really doing their job, the Government would be flooded with applications for revision, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment and to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. But the only way in which I could raise the matter on the Floor of this Chamber was by putting down an Amendment. If the Government will promise to give some lead to local authori-


ties in this matter, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, at end, insert:
(3) For the reference in Sub-section (4) of Section thirteen to the registration officer there shall, in the application of this Act to Northern Ireland, be substituted a reference to the person to whom the application referred to in that Sub-section is to be made in accordance with electoral registration regulations.
The object of the Amendment is to substitute for the registration officer in the case of England and Wales the equivalent officer in Northern Ireland, where there is no such officer. The Amendment is to Sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the 1943 Act which relates to the delegation of electoral duties to the registration officer. The Amendment is little more than drafting and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Business premises applications by service voters.)

(1) A person qualified to be registered in the business premises register to be comprised—

(a) in the register for any parliamentary election initiated in March, nineteen hundred and forty-five;
(b) in the May, 1945, register; or
(c) in the annual register;

may, if at the time of his application he is a member of the Forces or a seaman, apply to be so registered on the form applicable in his case for the making of a Service declaration, giving the address of the business premises occupied by him on the qualifying date instead of the address at which he was, or but for his service as a member of the Forces or a seaman would have been, residing.
(2) Any person registered in the business premises register in pursuance of an application made as aforesaid shall not be entitled to vote in person in respect of that registration, but shall be entered in the absent voters' list and entitled to appoint a proxy, and shall be entitled to vote by post or by proxy accordingly.

(3) The provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1943 shall apply in relation to the appointment and voting of proxies under this Section:
Provided that any such appointment and any cancellation of such an appointment by any person shall be made on the form applicable in his case for the appointment of a proxy to vote for him at an election for which he is registered in the Service register or for the cancellation of any such appointment, as the case may be.
(4) Any such application, appointment or cancellation shall be marked with the words "business premises application" or words to the like effect and any form which may be used under this Section for making any such application, appointment or cancellation shall be taken to relate to the business premises register if but only if it is so marked.
(5) Where, within the time allowed for the receipt of applications to be registered in any such business premises register, the registration officer or other officer concerned receives a form of Service declaration duly filled in and the declaration is—

(a) attested as a Service declaration;
(b) marked as aforesaid; and
(c) dated on or after the qualifying date by reference to which that register is to be prepared;

then it shall be conclusively presumed that the person signing the form was on the qualifying date a member of the Forces or a seaman and it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown that he is entitled to be registered in that business premises register in respect of the premises referred to in the form.
(6) Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of the Act of 1943 (which penalises persons improperly attesting Service declarations) shall apply to an application to be registered in the business premises register made on a form of Service declaration as if it were a Service declaration.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This, the first of the new Clauses on the Paper, should, I understand, be taken separately, and after that would you, Mr. Williams, be good enough to consider whether the remaining Clauses might be grouped as far as discussion is concerned? This Clause deals with the Service man who wishes to become registered as a business voter and the procedure set up enables Service voters to make application for registration in the business premises register. It has been necessary to devise machinery which could be easily and speedily operated because business premises applications must be received by 28th February, 1945. Accordingly, it has been necessary to adapt for this purpose


the existing Service declaration cards, since these are already obtainable by those concerned. Time would not allow, firstly, for the request to an electoral registration officer for the transmission of a business premises application form, secondly, the receipt of that form, and thirdly, its completion and return to the electoral registration officer. On the declaration card to be used, the Service applicant will insert the particulars of the business premises in respect of which he is claiming a business vote. The first Sub-section requires that a fresh application should be made in respect of each business premises register compiled.
Sub-section (2) is to enable Service voters to vote by post in respect of a business premises qualification, and any such application will also entitle the applicant to be entered on the absent voters list. Inclusion in the absent voters list is a condition precedent to postal voting in respect of a business premises qualification. The declaration may also, under Sub-section 3, be used for the appointment of a proxy in the same manner as it can be so used by a Service voter obtaining a proxy in respect of his Service vote. The same procedure will also apply in respect of the cancellation of a proxy appointment. In order to identify business premises applications made in this manner, this Sub-section requires that the declaration card shall be marked with the words "business premises application" or similar words.
There is a fourth Sub-section which provides that on receipt of an application notice form duly attested the electoral registration officer is to presume that the applicant is entitled to be registered in respect of the premises stated, unless the contrary is proved. It is recognised that as the form of application does not permit of the insertion of particulars of these premises, there may in theory be some difficulty on this point. On the other hand, very few of these applications are likely to be received and it is not expected that in practice there will be any difficulty in a registration officer making the necessary inquiries in admittedly doubtful cases. That is the case for the new Clause.

Mr. Turton: When, 14 months ago, I objected to the fact that Service voters

would find it difficult to get on the business premises register, the Under-Secretary said that arrangements would be made to allow a wife to get the husband registered and that the Amendment would be made to that Act to allow for it. May I ask the Home Secretary whether, under this new Clause, that provision will still be possible? tt would be a pity if the effect of the new Clause would be to make it harder than ever for a Service voter to get on the business register. It would be difficult for a man serving in the South East Asia Command under this Clause to get included in the business register in time. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the Home Secretary will see that the concession given 14 months ago has been retained in this new Clause.

The Lord Advocate: There was a concession, but I am afraid that this point is a little novel to us at the moment. There is another new Clause further on which deals with another aspect of the matter, but my understanding is that there was a provision under which a wife could claim a vote for herself, because at that time she had a business vote as well as her husband. That cannot survive, because the business man's wife no longer has a vote under the new Bill and therefore that concession must fall with the taking away of the vote of the business man's wife. Whether arrangements can be made to save the arrangement in a slightly different way is a subject we have been considering closely and on which we have not yet reached a conclusion.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am in some difficulty on this matter because reference has been made to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) on page 44. I am not quite sure whether we can discuss the two points together. They are very nearly the same, and the Lord Advocate has just touched on the point in the new Clause on page 44. Would the Committee agree to take the two Clauses together so to speak? We cannot take them together but we can deal with them together.

Mr. Turton: I am at fault, Mr. Williams, for not having noticed that new Clause, and I ought to have reserved my right until that new Clause was introduced.

The Deputy-Chairman: In these circumstances I think it would be better if we dealt with it here, as we have begun to do so.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I would he agreeable to that course, Mr. Williams. Am I permitted to move the new Clause now?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the new Clause cannot be moved now, but I think we can deal with the point, which seems to be art extension of the point here, in the one discussion. The new Clause will have to be moved later.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has made was really sought to be made by me on the Clause which appears in my name on the Order Paper. I felt that it would be very difficult for a good many people who might he qualified for a place on the business register to get in their applications in the time permitted. I do think that it is up to us in this House to ensure that everybody who is entitled to a vote should have a fair opportunity of filling in the necessary form of application. In October, 1943, when the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Bill was being discussed, I raised this particular point during the Second Reading Debate, and asked whether it would be possible for a wife of a man in the Forces serving overseas to make application for her husband's name to be put on the register as a business voter. My right hon. Friend the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was at that time the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department undertook to look into that point. As the Lord Advocate has mentioned, an Amendment was incorporated in that Bill, and if hon. Members will look up the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, Section 6, Sub-section (2), they will find it reads as follows:
Where a husband and wife are qualified to be registered in respect of any business premises by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Section, the said application may be made by either of them on behalf of both of them.
Of course the position is different now in that the spouses' vote has been abolished by the present Bill, but at the same time I feel that having regard to the present exceptional circumstances, consideration ought to be given by the Government to

allow a spouse, or some agent of the absentee potential business voter, to put that person's name on the business register. It may be that my Amendment is not worded very well because this is a rather difficult point to cover, but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate to look into this matter and see how we can overcome the difficulty. I do feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton feels, that a good many men will be disfranchised from the business vote unless we can do something along these lines.

3.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: There is undoubtedly a great deal to be said for allowing the spouse at home, or even the others mentioned in the subsequent new Clause, to act on behalf of the serving man, but the new Clause would have to be a great deal more elaborate than it is before it would work. The new Clause which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has moved is elaborate enough, and that deals with the man claiming for himself. If we are to bring in the additional qualification of the wife claiming on his behalf, it would have to be still more elaborate. We have been considering this matter for some little time but we have not yet been able to devise anything that would fit.
There are several points. First, we have to be satisfied that the man on whose behalf the wife is claiming really is a Service man. Then this is no use unless the business voter is put on the absent voters' list, and it may be that the business man himself would not want that; he might be thinking he was coming home. It is necessary to provide for that. Then it is impossible that the wife should appoint a proxy on behalf of her husband; that at least would have to go to him for approval, and she cannot very well give the postal address to which the postal vote is to be sent. There will have to be some reference to the husband on Service in any event. We thought that, on the whole, the new Clause which my right hon. Friend has proposed met the point, but we are prepared to look into the matter again. However, I cannot hold out a great deal of hope that we shall find a satisfactory solution, and obviously it is better to leave things as they stand than to introduce some complication about which we have great doubt as to whether it will really work.

Mr. Turton: I do not think that is a very satisfactory way in which to leave the matter. Let us remember that in 1943 there was a clamour in this House that in the case of Service men serving far overseas it should be made easier for them to get on to the business premises register. The present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, calmed down the House by saying that he would make a concession under which the wife of the Service voter could claim to have her husband put on the register. I must confess that I had overlooked the new Clause which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, and it may be that the new Clause is not sufficiently well drafted. If, however, it is not sufficiently well drafted to be accepted, it is the obligation of the Government to honour the promise given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and to provide a new Clause which will enable Service men far away from home to get on the business register as a result, and I think that the new Clause should be put in this Bill before this Bill leaves the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: In calling upon the Home Secretary to move the new Clause [Postal voting by Service voters at parliamentary elections other than university elections] I should point out that I have been given to understand that the next new Clause and the one following, down to page 39, are all practically the same in purpose, or at least they follow one upon the other. If it is agreeable to the Committee, I propose that we should discuss them together, and put them separately afterwards. Is that agreeable to the Committee as a whole?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Committee is, of course, in your hands, Mr. Williams, but I thought that all these Clauses down to page 41 were broadly related, and that if we could have had a general discussion on them, and then they were put separately thereafter, it might perhaps meet the convenience of the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I should have said "down to the middle of page 41."

NEW CLAUSE.—(Postal voting by Service voters at parliamentary elections other than university elections.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, any person who is registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency—

(a) in the Service register; or
(b) in pursuance of an application under this Act made by a member of the Forces, seaman or other person on a form of declaration of residence, in the business premises register;

shall, if he has made an application in that behalf in accordance with electoral registration regulations, be entitled to vote by post in the same way, subject to any prescribed modifications, as an absent voter at any General Election for which that register is in force, being an election to which this Part of this Act applies.
(2) Every application to vote by post under this Section shall give an address (hereinafter referred to as a "voting address"), to which the applicant wishes a ballot paper to be sent, but no person shall be entitled to make such an application while be is outside the postal voting areas or to apply for a ballot paper to be sent outside those areas;
Provided that no such application shall be invalidated by reason of any contravention of this Sub-section, but a returning officer shall not be obliged to issue a ballot paper in pursuance of such an application, if the voting address given is known to him to be outside the postal voting areas.
(3) A person who has made an application to vote by post under this Section shall not be entitled to vote in person at any election for which the application is in force.
(4) The making of such an application by any person shall not prevent or invalidate the appointment of a proxy to vote on his behalf and (subject as hereinafter provided) ballot papers may be issued to, and a vote may be cast by, both him and his proxy on his behalf.
(5) Any person who has made such an application may, in accordance with electoral registration regulations, supersede it by a fresh application, giving a new voting address, or cancel it by notice to the registration officer concerned.
(6) Unless superseded or cancelled as aforesaid any such application shall continue in force for the purposes of any General Election to which this Part of this Act applies so long as the person making the application is registered or entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for the constituency by virtue of the same declaration of residence or, in the case of a person registered in the business premises register, so long as that register remains in force.
(7) Any such application or notice cancelling such an application shall be disregarded for the purpose of any election unless received by the registration officer four clear days at least before the day fixed for nomination.


(8) Sub-section (3) of Section nine of the Act of 1943 (which entitles members of the Forces to vote by post provided a ballot paper is not sent to them out of the United Kingdom) shall not apply in relation to a General Election to which this Part of this Act applies.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a substantial and new body of Clauses which it is now desired to bring into the Bill. First, it is my duty to apologise to the Committee for the somewhat unusual and novel procedure, though it is done from time to time. I think the last occasion, which I had better not remember too clearly, was the Town and Country Planning Bill, but the reason for this series of substantial new Clauses is that the Government and the House were a little worried as to whether voting by proxy was the best system and wondered whether some improvement could not be made upon it. There is nothing so satisfactory as men or women voting for the candidate they prefer. It is far better that they should do it themselves than for it to be done by the proxies they appoint on their behalf. In the circumstances of 1943 we felt we were driven to the proxy arrangement, and that scheme was commended to, and accepted, by the House. But since then we have had to deal with legislation which has had more connection with a General Election, whereas a good deal of the purpose of the 1943 legislation was related to Parliamentary by-elections, which were different and presented different organising problems.
When we came to consider the General Election, the Government themselves felt that if we could get personal postal voting by Service men and women, and members of the Mercantile Marine and war workers abroad, over as big an area as possible it would be preferable to proxy voting. It is a question of by which means you will get the most representative vote. There is a certain element of gambling about postal voting. It is always possible that something might go wrong, although we hope it will not and will do our best to see that it will not. On the other hand, if proxy voting is more likely to be 100 per cent. complete the possibility of voting is nevertheless not so good when a person has to cast a vote on behalf of another person. So we thought we would

examine the question and we set up a Conference which was admirably composed of Members of the principal parties in the House, party agents who are great experts on these matters, some returning officers, officials of the Home Office and the Scottish Office, representatives of the Service Departments and perhaps a few others. It was a Conference of all people likely to know about the problem and make a contribution to its solution. Then we had to decide who should be the Chairman. In matters of this kind one may be under suspicion as a politician, and the question was whether we should decide to have a Chairman who was not associated with any political party. Nevertheless, there was a Ministerial aspect about it, and we thought the Chairman had better be a Minister; so we tried to find one who was not associated or identified with any political party. Perhaps inevitably, or otherwise, the choice fell on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose private political beliefs, if any, are still subject to the greatest speculation and doubt among various Members of the House of Commons.
I well remember coming across my right hon. Friend some years ago when a Civil Defence Bill was before the House. I was reminding him how I had been in touch with Civil Defence since I had been the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government of 1929–31, when I had suddenly found myself, with all my pacific traditions, a member of a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which had to deal with Civil Defence matters. That rather frightened me. I said to my right hon. Friend, who was then Home Secretary, that he had been my tutor at a time when he was Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, and I said, further, that I would not have fully trusted him had I known that I should find him sitting later on the Treasury Bench as a Tory Minister. My right hon. Friend then got up, and with great and justifiable indignation, said that I had no right to describe him in that way, because he was sitting as a National Member, and had no party politics at all. I quote this to show why I think everybody will accept my right hon. Friend as being impartial and free from political bias, and I would like to thank him and all the members of his Conference for the


work they did and the speed at which they did it. That Conference produced a White Paper, which was approved by the Cabinet and submitted to the House. Then the Home Office, with their well known efficiency, produced draft Clauses with no less speed and here we have the result. My only purpose now is to give a general description of the object of these draft Clauses which take up many lines of type on the Order Paper. They give effect to the scheme which the Chancellor's Conference produced, whereby there may be postal voting for members of the Forces, merchant seamen and war workers abroad. They embody the scheme as recommended by the Conference and embodied in the White Paper.
The recommendations submitted were unanimous, which was a great achievement because the Conference was composed of a varied body of people and, as I have said, we are grateful to the Chancellor and to them for their work. The broad outline of the scheme is summarised in paragraph 22 of their Report. It contemplates that the present arrangements will continue, under which members of the Forces, by sending a declaration to the appropriate registration officer, will secure registration for the constituency in which, but for their service abroad, they would have been living. It is anticipated that by the qualifying date for inclusion in the May Service register—that is to say 15th March—this procedure will have resulted in the registration of some 90 per cent. of the total number of persons in the Services who are eligible. I know that the House was anxious, quite rightly, on this point and stimulated us to see that Service men and women were registered. It was, of course, mainly a matter for the Service men and women themselves, but they had to be stimulated and pushed along as well. That was a task for the Service Ministers, but I was in it as the presiding angel.

Captain Cobb: Presiding what?

Mr. Morrison: Presiding angel, and quite rightly. I must say that the Service Ministers, officers of the Forces and all concerned are to be congratulated upon the relatively short period which was required to get these forms filled in by over 90 per cent. of Service men and women. The House did its part in that by making itself a nuisance, and pushing everybody

along. It was good work, as I think the House will agree. This work is not to be wasted. It will still form the basis of the postal arrangements. In addition, one of the Clauses makes provision to enable a voter who is eligible to make a claim for registration under the business premises register. Under the present law, the Service voter may appoint a proxy to vote for him. It is proposed that the proxy appointments already made should stand and that Service voters should continue to have the opportunity of making such appointments. This is necessary because the scheme of postal voting by persons abroad will not be possible at by-elections, and because at a General Election a Service voter may not be within reach of the postal voting facilities or, for other reasons, may fail to receive a postal voting paper.
Whether the Service voter has appointed a proxy or not, however, he will be able, if he is in a postal voting area and wishes to vote by post, to apply to his appropriate registration officer for a postal ballot paper to be sent to him and, in making this application, he will give the address to which the ballot paper is to be sent. The postal voting areas will be determined by Regulations which are subject to an affirmative Resolution and therefore they cannot apply unless Parliament approves of them—Parliament will be master of the whole business—and in accordance with the recommendations of the Conference the Regulations will include, if the House agrees to the proposal, that the count should be postponed for 19 days after the close of the poll. A full list of the areas that will he covered is given in paragraph 16 of the Report of the Conference. Apart from some areas which cannot be covered by reason of their remoteness or of the small number of Service voters stationed in them, the system of postal voting will extend to all areas except Australia and New Zealand.
When the General Election comes it will be the duty of the returning officer here to send a ballot paper to those Service voters who have applied, and he will send with the ballot paper a copy of the election address of each candidate. As the election mail will have to be sent out by air it is necessary, generally speaking, to impose some limitation on the size and weight of election addresses and it is proposed to take power to do this by Regulation. It may be necessary for elec-


tion addresses to be printed on specially thin paper—that is a matter of practicability and arrangement—and I gather that the Prime Minister is rather in favour of photographs of the candidates being put on the election address. He has always said, however, with the reasonableness characteristic of him, that it should not be made compulsory, and I agree with him. Personally, I propose to put mine on. [An HON. MEMBER: "Complete with wings?"] Certainly, but if I do that it will have to be in a cartoon on the back. I know that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) will not agree with this, having regard to the Sunday entertainment controversy. Under this procedure a Service voter will be in a position to vote both by post and by proxy. It is necessary, therefore, to make provision for the cancellation of his proxy vote in a case where he himself returns a postal vote in time for inclusion in the count. Detailed arrangements in this respect will be made by Regulation. It is intended that Service voters included in the business premises or university register should have a similar opportunity of voting by post and the necessary provision to this end is proposed. The postal voting arrangements will operate in the case of a general election initiated this year after next March but may be extended for a further period by Regulation.
The new Clause also makes provision for the appointment by a Service voter as a proxy at a university election of any person whom he could properly have appointed as a proxy at an election for another constituency and for relating the period of appointment of a proxy to the period for which an application to be entered in the absent voters' list is valid. The argument for the university vote is that it should bring the culture, education and knowledge of the universities to the service of Parliament. A proxy, it could be argued, should be qualified as a university voter. We think that is a bit unreasonable and that he should be able to appoint anyone who would be legally entitled to vote, whether for a university constituency or not. I hope that Members for universities will not mind this degree of non-cultural dilution of the university electorate. As regards local elections, it is not practicable to provide for Service voters to record their votes by post but we have introduced into one of these Clauses a provision for

the Service voter to vote at local elections by a proxy appointed by the voter for the purpose of a Parliamentary election, and that is the only way we can do it. I think that covers the matters dealt with by these Clauses. I hope the Committee will agree that both the Conference and the Government have acted with speed and I believe we have acted in accordance with the policy which Parliament would have wished.

Mr. Turton: It is interesting to me to recollect that on 3rd November, 1943, I introduced a similar new Clause. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied and said that postal voting would be no improvement to the Parliamentary Elections Bill and that in his view it would be wise and proper to provide for members of the Forces overseas to vote, if at all, by means of proxies. Any other method would lead to confusion and chaos. I hope very much that, now that we have persuaded the Home Secretary, he is not going to lead us, as a guiding angel, to confusion and chaos. I think we have all got a bit wiser in the intervening 14 months. I had then an advantage which I do not possess to-day of knowing what soldiers overseas were thinking and I knew that they were very much against proxies and wanted to have a personal vote. I think that the history of these 14 months has shown that soldiers do not like proxies. The Department has done a great deal of good work in encouraging men in the Army, Navy and Air Force to register, even though they are doing it with great difficulty, and with regard to the Merchant Navy with very little success. I hope the Government will bear that last factor in mind.
I want to leave that question of what happened 14 months ago and let bygones be bygones. There is, however, an awkward difficulty that arises from it. If we had had postal voting 14 months ago we could have arranged that when a man made his Service declaration he also gave his address. That would have been necessary if 14 months ago we decided to have postal voting. Now we have the position that men have made their Service declarations and many have appointed proxies, but no returning officer knows the addresses of Service men and women. That is making the whole problem of instituting postal voting now much more complicated. The Conference got over that difficulty by suggesting that when a


man made his application for a postal voting paper he enclosed in his envelope an adhesive label giving the address to which the postal ballot paper was to be sent. I would commend that recommendation of the Conference to the Committee. I would like to go a little further. If, later on, any new Service declarations are required to be made by members of the Forces, I hope the Home Secretary will see that the address of the Service man is placed on the declaration. I think that as the war progresses we all get more over-security minded, and whatever Government Departments may say, there is no objection to a man in a Service declaration giving his Service address. The Service addresses to which one now addresses one's letters are very non-committal. It is important that those addresses should be in the hands of the registration officer.
Under the present system a man makes his Service declaration and appoints his proxy, but he does not yet know whether his application has been received and what constituency he belongs to. The unfortunate result of this delay of 14 months was that we in the Conference could not suggest any way in which the Service man would know of his constituency until he made an application for a postal voting paper. It is a matter which occupied the attention of the Conference for a considerable time, and I hope the Home Secretary will give it his earnest consideration. It is a vital part of postal voting that the Service man should be linked up to his constituency at the earliest possible moment, and if we cannot do it by Act of Parliament, I suggest that we might aid the matter by appeals on the wireless and in the Press to the parents, wives and husbands of Service men and women to tell the Service men and women what their constituencies are. This matter will grow in complexity as the Divisions are sub-divided under the recent Act. When there is a sub-division of a constituency it will be impossible for the average Service man to know in which part of the sub-divided constituency he resides. Therefore, I ask the Government to pay some attention to that aspect of the matter.
The new Clauses are so drafted as to make them apply only to an election which takes place between 1st April, 1945, and 31st September, 1945. It is incon-

ceivable to think that when we have got this great and involved machinery for postal voting we are going to scrap the whole thing on 1st January, 1946. It would be appropriate at this stage for the Government to give us some indication of their future intentions. I presume that they contemplate that postal voting for the Forces will go on for the whole period of the war against Germany and Japan and for a reasonable period thereafter. If not, we should be told. When we have peace-time conditions some of the procedure recommended in the report of the Conference may no longer be necessary because it is really a war-time provision, but I hope the Government will give some broad assurance for the future of postal voting.

4.15 p.m.

Colonel Greenwell: Why, in future years, should Service voters be disfranchised while serving abroad? Surely postal voting should go on for ever, particularly in view of the fact that all reasonable people expect that the Armed Forces of the Crown will be substantially greater than in the past.

Mr. Turton: I entirely agree with the motives which prompted my hon. and gallant Friend in that interruption. These Clauses contain a plan for postal voting in war-time, and I believe that it will always have to continue unless we adopt the Dominions plan of voting in the field. It may well be that at a later time this country will adopt in peace-time a plan more similar to that of the Dominions. I believe, however, that the plan which the Home Secretary is putting forward is the best plan that this country could devise. It is superior to the Dominion plan of voting in the field. It gives men more knowledge of what they are voting about than is possessed by the average Service man of the United States, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Home Secretary, and also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whose Conference I had the honour to serve. It was only by his great skill as chairman that we got an agreed report so quickly and so well.
There is one point that may come up on a later Amendment which ought to be noticed here. Under this plan we will have a delay between the poll and the count. I hope that we shall do nothing to alter the plan as put forward in the


Report of the Conference. If we are to give Service men the vote we want to see as many Service candidates as possible in the field, and it would be a great drawback if we added to the time of the election and so added to the election expenses of the candidates. May I thank the Home Secretary for having introduced these Clauses and say that I believe they will greatly improve the position of Service men in an election?

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich): I should like to add my congratulations to those that have been given to the Home Secretary. He may be said, in this matter, to have won his wings, and those of us who are in favour of this sort of action may be said to have won smaller wings or feathers. I hope that the troops will be adequately informed about this new scheme. The Minister has told us of the satisfactory results of the registration. I do not know what the figures are of applications for proxy votes, but I imagine that they are not quite as satisfactory. I hope that the applications for voting papers will be as high as the original registration, and that we shall get 90 per cent. applications for them. I would like to ask whether the troops will be fully assured that the ballot will be conducted with complete secrecy, and that there will be no question of any letters being opened or censored. I realise that that will be so, but I hope the fullest publicity will be given to it. I would say in conclusion that this illustrates the very great importance that we attach to the Service voter, and also the great importance that we attach to Democracy. It is a remarkable tribute to Democracy that we are contemplating an immense amount of work in sending ships, trains and aeroplanes all over the world in order to see that Thomas Atkins does vote—and I hope that he will vote when the time comes.

Colonel Greenwell: I have had to give a considerable amount of thought to a point which I wish to raise with the Home Secretary, and I have canvassed the opinions of some much more experienced Parliamentary friends. I trust that you will concur, Sir Albert, with the conclusions I have reached by not finding it necessary to rule my remarks out of Order. I want to speak about a class of person who is, I find, in no wise covered by the provisions of the Clause. I do not think these persons are covered by any

other Act of Parliament. I hope that the Home Secretary will find it possible to put in a few appropriate words on the Report stage in order to enfranchise people who are bed-ridden through sickness, permanently, because at the present moment they are completely disfranchised.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): The hon. and gallant Member is transgressing the Rules of Order. I must ask him to speak to the subject of the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 13, leave out from "entitled," to "to," in line 14.
Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause says that an applicant for a ballot paper shall not be entitled to make such application while he is outside the postal-voting areas, and there is a second prohibition that he shall not apply for a ballot paper to be sent outside those areas. Clearly, the second prohibition is right. If you have postal-voting areas you must see to it that only applications for those areas are valid; but the first prohibition seems to me to be unjust and unwise. There will be many cases of men in a non-postal voting area who may be due for repatriation, or to come home on leave, or who may know that they are shortly to be posted to a postal-voting area. They may be in a unit which is just about to change stations, and to prohibit those men from making an application for a ballot paper seems quite wrong.
I agree that there is a proviso in which the Government say that no application shall be invalidated by reason of any contravention of that Sub-section, and that really makes my Amendment little more than a drafting proposal; but if Subsection (2) means so very little, the Minister would lose nothing by taking out the words which I am now asking him to omit. If he did take them out we would get rid of that objection that if a unit is about to change its station from a non-postal-voting area to a postal-voting area under the Bill as drafted, people would be prevented from applying for a ballot paper. The Committee do not want that to happen, and I think it would be far wiser to omit these words.

The Solicitor-General: The point which my hon. Friend wishes to make is one that will meet with sympathy from us all, but the question we have to consider is whether the course that he is suggesting is practical. His experience is much greater and more recent than mine, but it appears to me that the Amendment is based on the idea that the ordinary member of a combatant unit would know the future course that his unit is going to take. Although intelligent anticipation is often indulged in and expressed, I should have thought that it would be impossible in reality for the Service voter to know in advance whether he is going to be in a postal area at a certain time if he is outside the area now. The basis of the Clause is that areas should be prescribed and that the prescribing of the areas should be approved by this House and therefore control be kept by the House of Commons; and that those within the areas should be entitled to apply for a ballot paper. If they are not in the areas they are not entitled to apply or to receive the document; but if they do apply from outside and if they take a chance and do give an address, the officer may comply with it if he can, but it will not be held to be a breach of duty on his part if he does not.
I suggest to the Committee that this basis of taking the prescribed postal areas is the only reasonable basis for dealing with this matter. With all respect to the avowed, keenly felt and often expressed desire of my hon. Friend to help the Service voter on all possible points, I suggest to the Committee that it is unnecessary on this point, and impracticable, and that it would not be of real assistance, to follow the course which the hon. Member has suggested to us.

Mr. Turton: Do I gather from what has just been said that although it says in the proposed new Clause that a man will not be entitled to make application if he is outside the postal-voting area, he would in fact be able to make the application? If that is so, surely something is wrong with the words in the Clause. After all, the non-postal-voting areas are very few. They are the West Indies, Australia and New Zealand. A man knows that when he has done four years he is due, under the wise provision of the Government, to come home, and after three years and 11 months he puts in his application for a postal-voting paper. He cannot do so,

if the proposed new Clause means what it says. If it is intended that the Clause should mean something quite different, I agree that my Amendment would be unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Lawson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 43, at end, add:
(9) Any person eligible for registration as a parliamentary elector for any constituency in the Service register but who has not so registered shall have made available to him at the time of an election a ballot paper giving the names and parties of the candidates for the constituency for which the person is eligible for registration.
Provision shall be made by electoral regulations to be approved by Parliament for the preparation and distribution of such ballot papers within the United Kingdom and at theatres of war overseas for the transmission of ballot papers to the appropriate returning officer in time for the counting of votes and for the sealing of each ballot paper in an envelope bearing particulars of the voter's identity so as to ensure that only those eligible to vote shall do so and that no one shall vote more than once.
I would like to add my voice to those which approve of what the Government have done in instituting postal voting. I have taken my part in criticising the proxy vote and I am glad to approve what has taken place. I think this method shows two great improvements on the proxy method. First, as the Home Secretary said, it gives the man himself a direct vote, and also a chance of seeing the electoral address of the various candidates. Nevertheless, what is proposed still has deficiencies and still leaves gaps. One of the first disadvantages of the proposed Clause is that it means the Service man will have to ask for and fill in yet another form. Members, quite rightly, I think, will press the Service Ministers as to how many forms have been filled in, and various steps will be taken, and it may be the Service men will get rather tired of this constant pressure, rightly applied, to see that these forms have been filled in. I think the law of diminishing returns will apply, and it will be more difficult under this procedure to get these forms filled in, and at the end fewer forms will have been filled in.
This method still means that the Service man or woman is at a disadvantage compared with the civilian, who does not


have to make any application for forms. My Amendment is not in any sense taking away anything which the Government have proposed. It is a provision to take care of those people who slipped through the net which has been outlined by the Home Secretary. The effect of the Amendment is to provide for those who for some reason or other have not registered to be provided at the time of the election with ballot papers, so that they can vote, even though they are not on the register. Their identity will be marked on the envelope in which the ballot paper is sealed, so that the returning officer can check whether they are persons entitled to vote in that particular constituency. Though the words may not make it absolutely clear, I would like this to apply to those who have registered but who, for some reason or other, do not fill in the forms asking for the postal vote.
It may be objected that what I am asking for is a difficult and impracticable thing. In actual fact that is not the case. During the last 12 months I have three times drawn attention in this House to what has been done by the Dominions for their Forces in the conduct of elections in the field. What I am asking is that those who have not got themselves registered, who have not applied for a postal vote, should be given a chance of voting in the field in the way that New Zealand arranged for Service voters in the field in 1943. I must again remind the Committee about the detail of that. Returning officers were sent out from New Zealand. They were provided with electoral lists and maps showing constituencies, and lists giving the names of the towns and constituencies. They started by trying to bring their lists up to date and giving Service men a vote if they were on the register. Those officers had been given a fairly free hand and instructions to allow people to vote, even though they were not on the register. They did it by the method I am asking that we should adopt—allowing the man to vote, sealing the vote in an envelope, putting his name, address and so on on the top of the envelope, and then sending it to the returning officer. To get this done as quickly as possible lists of candidates and divisions for which they were standing were prepared from broadcast messages.
I believe that system worked quite well. Even if this method gives a slightly

larger proportion of bogus votes than one gets in an ordinary election it will provide a vote for a large number of people who would otherwise not get it. Australia has done the same thing in a General Election and a referendum. Canada is proposing to conduct a General Election by this method. One of the Provinces of Canada, Saskatchewan, did conduct a Provincial election in this way last year, and the United States conducted their election last year in the same way.
While I am not tying myself exactly to the method used by any one Dominion I feel we have a solid body of evidence, in what the Dominions have done, which makes it possible to give the vote to those Service men who for one reason or other, perhaps by mischance, arrive at the election day without being on the register or without having asked for a postal vote. If we do not examine this matter very carefully indeed and strain every nerve to give the men a vote, we shall be failing in our duty to those citizens who have been abroad while we have been at home. Maybe there are objections to the exact words I have put down. I am not concerned with them, I am concerned with principles. I should like the Home Secretary to say whether he will examine this matter between now and the General Election, so that if we pass this Bill in its present form we can have an assurance that provisions of this nature will be brought in to give a last chance to men who have fallen through the scheme as so far set up.

The Solicitor-General: Again I feel sympathy with what is at the back of the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson), but when he advances a little further from that position I find great difficulties, as indeed he anticipated. I know he desires that everyone possible should vote and ought to vote, but I wish to examine this matter, because the last thing I should like him to think is that we are unreasonably rejecting it out of hand. It would be fair to put his proposal as being that any person eligible far registration in the Service register who has failed to take the necessary steps to have himself registered, should nevertheless receive a ballot paper at the time of the election. What it amounts to is that we shall ask certain people to register, not to take too much trouble, we hope, but to


take a certain amount of trouble, to register, and at the same time we shall say, "Well, it does not matter if you do not register, we have got this beneficent sweeping up Clause which will bring you in." I do not think—one has to be realistic about human nature—that will help the registration system. It is of course unheard of for anyone who has not been included on the register to vote at ad election in this country. The examples which my hon. Friend gave are, of course, on a different scale.
What seems to me the practical difficulty is that it would be impossible, in the absence of a claim for registration from the Service voter himself, to determine the constituency for which he has eligibility, because the registration in the Service register is a declaration by the man himself, giving the address at which, but for the war, he would be living. If my hon. Friend proposes that these requirements should be done away with it will be extremely difficult, if not utterly impossible, for the returning officer to know to which persons, and to what addresses, ballot papers should be sent, and there is no source, as was pointed out by the Conference, from which the returning officer could get that information. I do not think that the proposal accords with this scheme as it has been designed, or that it would be practicably possible to carry it out. In these circumstances, it would not be right to hold out hopes of the examination of the scheme which my hon. Friend has suggested. But, of course, the idea at the back of his proposal, of giving everyone the chance of voting, will be in our minds continuously, and if there is any other suggestion, or any variant of this suggestion, which will achieve that, I do not think that my hon. Friend will have cause to complain of unreadiness on the part of my right hon. Friend or of anyone assisting him to consider such a scheme. I think that that is as far as I can go, and I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not press his proposal.

Mr. Bowles: May I put forward two points relating to what the Solicitor-General has just said? The second reason he gave for turning down my hon. Friend's suggestion was that it would not be practicable because the returning officer would not know whether a certain person had been put on the

register, or, alternatively, he would not know where a person was. But suppose that the man himself makes an application, by telegram or in some other way, stating that he is not on the register, and asking if the returning officer would kindly send him the necessary papers. That, to my mind, would do away with that objection. I quite understand the reason given by the hon. and learned Gentleman for turning down this proposal on the ground of human nature. But suppose that a man in the Forces showed reasonable cause for not having registered—he might have been missing, a prisoner of war or in some situation where it would have been quite impossible for him to get his name on the register at the time when registration took place. In such a case, I think the argument about human nature also falls to the ground.
May I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider both these points. In the first place, on the question of human nature if the man can show reasonable cause why he was not on the register will that be taken into account? That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) had, as the Solicitor-General said, at the back of his mind: I should say that it was at the front of his mind, in fact, coming out of his face. The other point is that if application is made to the returning officer, the returning officer then will not be able to say that he does not know either that the man is not on the register or where he is.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Lawson: The first objection made by the Solicitor-General is that this does not fit in with the scheme that the Home Secretary has brought forward, but I think that this is the way it should be done. The Government have brought forward a scheme for postal voting, and nothing that I could do could make them scrap that scheme—in fact, I do not think that we should scrap it. Therefore, we have the slightly illogical provision that we have two parallel schemes running together. But we should not take the view that, because a man has failed for some reason to fill in his form properly, he should be penalised. That is not what is done in civilian life; whether the person is interested or not, his name is put on the register. The second argument is that this will be difficult in practice: how is the returning officer to know that a man


is a bona fide resident in the constituency? What the Dominions have done is this. A man has to sign a declaration that if it were not for the war he would have been living in a particular place. That can easily be done. I am sure that in most cases that would be a fair way. Suppose that a man were registered in a constituency in which he would not actually be living; no great harm would be done. I will not describe in detail how this procedure is carried out in the Dominions, because I have spoken about it before, and the Government are in a much better position to consult Dominion officials and find out the facts than backbench Members are. This is not a half-baked idea, either from the back of my mind or from the front of my mind. It has been put into operation by three great Dominions during this war, it has been proved in practice, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. John Dugdale: I am not concerned whether this idea comes from the back or the front of my hon. Friend's mind. I appreciate what the Solicitor-General has said about human nature; but in the Bible there is a parable about some men who went to work in a vineyard. Although the people who came in first might have expected some advantage, those who came in at the last hour were treated in the same way as they were. The same principle might be applied, I suggest, in this case. I would ask whether the nod which I saw the Solicitor-General give after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) meant that he was prepared to consider favourably the suggestion that my hon. Friend had made.

The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend has asked that question, let me say that the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) dealt with the showing of reasonable cause and irregular application, in a last-moment way, such as by telegram. I shall consider these points and have them examined, but I want to enter this caveat, because it is not my practice to get out of a difficult situation by appearing to agree when I do not. The registration officers, on any showing, are going to have an enormous amount of work, and exceptions which would be most reasonable in the ordinary way—my hon. Friend and I are familiar with the term "reasonable cause" in many spheres—

have to be viewed in relation to the abnormal amount of work which the registration officers have to do. With that caveat, I shall always be prepared to consider the suggestions of my hon. Friend and also the general desires of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton.
Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Are we going to have the formal moving of the new Clauses without any reply from the Government? After the general debate on the new Clauses, should not an opportunity be allowed for reply to the points raised?

The Solicitor-General: I am quite willing to make the reply at any stage that is convenient.

The Temporary Chairman: There is nothing before the Committee at the moment.

NEW CLAUSE—(Provisions for superseding proxy votes by postal votes.)

Provision shall be made by electoral registration regulations for securing that, where a ballot paper is issued to any person registered in the service register or the business premises register for the purpose of voting by post under this Part of this Act and, when the absent voters' ballot boxes are opened for the purpose of checking the envelopes therein and their contents, the declaration of identity sent to that person with that ballot paper is found to have been returned and is not rejected by the returning officer, any vote cast on that person's behalf by his proxy shall not be counted; and for that purpose the regulations shall in particular provide,—

(a) for placing on the declaration of identity to be sent to any person so registered for the purpose of voting by post under this Part of this Act his number in the relevant register, and for rejecting any such declaration of identity if it is found that that number has been defaced or removed before it is returned to the returning officer;
(b) for marking on a copy of the relevant register, from the numbers so placed on declarations of identity returned and not rejected, the names of the persons whose proxies' votes are under this section not to be counted;
(c) for securing that ballot papers issued for the purpose of voting as proxy for a person registered in the service register or the business premises register shall be of a different colour or otherwise readily distinguishable from other ballot papers;
(d) for enabling any ballot paper issued for the purpose of voting as proxy for a person so registered to be identified after it


has been marked (but so far as practicable without disclosing how it has been marked) by reference to the number of that person in the relevant register, for rejecting any such ballot paper if either—

(i) it is not identifiable in manner provided by the regulations; or
(ii) it is found, on comparison with the copy of the relevant register marked in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, to be a paper which is not to be counted;

and for rendering not so identifiable any such ballot paper which is not so rejected;
(e) for making the said comparison immediately after the number of the ballot papers in the ballot boxes has been counted and recorded in accordance with paragraph 34 of the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, and (unless that comparison is not completed on the day on which the counting of the votes begins) for the adjournment of the counting on the completion of the comparison until the next following day which is not a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, or a day which under the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, as amended by any subsequent enactment (including Defence Regulations) is a Bank Holiday in the place where the votes are being counted;
(f) for any other matters which appear to the Secretary of State to be incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section, including such amendments of the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other enactment as appear to him to be necessary for carrying those provisions into effect.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Solicitor-General: It might be convenient if I dealt now with the point which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has raised, as it is this Clause, in general, which raises the point which he had in mind. As I understood my hon. Friend there were three points which he raised. The first was the question of the address. He regretted that the address was not included in the Service declaration and hoped that, if a new declaration were made, the address would go in. I shall certainly again consider that point with reference to all the considerations which I have just put before the Committee. The second point was with regard to continuance. It was hoped that this system of voting would be needed during the present year. I do not think my hon. Friend actually adumbrated the point, but he may have had it in mind, that we should have some provision to give power to continue it by

Order in Council or Regulation or the like. I will again consider that point, and there will be an opportunity for intimating the decision come to. On the third point, that of maintaining the present position of the delay between the poll and the count, I shall not go into that, because it is the position put forward by the Government, and, unless any alteration is suggested, no alteration will be put forward from this Bench.
I am very glad also to have the opportunity of dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). The first of these was that the fullest possible steps should be taken to give information to the troops. That is certainly the policy of the Government, and everything that can be done will be done by the Service Departments, and everything will be done by the Home Office, who are in charge of electoral machinery, to inspire the other Departments to take that course. As my hon. Friend himself indicated, there is no question to the contrary. This ballot will be conducted with complete secrecy, and, of course, there will be no adverse reaction on the soldier in any way. I can give that assurance quite categorically. My hon. Friend knows that certain pieces of machinery had to be erected and other processes gone through with regard to the supersession of proxy-votes by postal votes, but that does not, as is quite clearly shown in the Appendix to the Report of the Conference, interfere in any way with the secrecy of the ballot. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of dealing with these points, and I am grateful to both hon. Members for putting them forward.

Question, put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Postal voting by service voters at university elections.)

(1) Where the returning officer for any university constituency receives from a person registered aS an elector for that constituency an application for a voting paper to be sent to him for the purpose of voting by post and the application is accompanied either—

(a) by a declaration in the same form and attested in the same manner and giving the same particulars as a service declaration, except that it shall give particulars of the university constituency instead of particulars of the place at which the declarant is or would be residing; or


(b) such a certificate as is referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section eleven of the Act of 1943 (which relates to persons registered in the National Register as engaged on war work abroad); or
(c) such certificates as are referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section three of this Act;

and the said declaration purports to be signed by, or the said certificate or certificates purport to relate to, the person making the application, then, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1918, that person shall be entitled at any general election to which this Part of this Act applies to have a voting paper sent to him at the address given in the application.
(2) No person shall be entitled to make an application for a voting paper to be sent under the foregoing Sub-section while he is outside the postal voting areas or to apply for a voting paper to be sent outside those areas under that Sub-section:
Provided that no such application shall be invalidated by reason of any contravention of this Sub-section but the returning officer shall not be obliged to send a voting paper in pursuance of such an application, if the address given is known to him to be outside the postal voting areas.
(3) Any application for a voting paper to be so sent may be superseded by a fresh application giving a new address and accompanied by the appropriate declaration, certificate or certificates, or may be cancelled by notice to the returning officer, but subject to the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section any such application shall continue in force for the purpose of any general election to which this Part of this Act applies.
(4) Any such application or notice shall be disregarded for the purpose of any election unless received by the returning officer four clear days at least before the day fixed for nomination.
(5) A person shall not be entitled to vote in person at any election at which he is entitled to have a voting paper sent to him under Sub-section (1) of this Section.
(6) The making of such an application by any person shall not prevent or invalidate the appointment of a proxy to vote on his behalf or the casting of a vote by his proxy at any election, but if at a general election to which this Part of this Act applies a voting paper is duly returned by him so as to be received by the returning officer before the day on which the counting of the votes is to begin, any vote cast by the proxy on his behalf shall be void.
(7) Electoral registration regulations shall make provision for giving effect to the last foregoing Sub-section, and shall for that purpose in particular provide—

(a) for marking, on any copy of the register to be used at any general election to which this Part of this Act applies for checking voting papers before they are counted, the name of any person entitled to have a voting paper sent to him under Sub-section (1) of this Section at that election;
(b) for rejecting any vote cast on his behalf by his proxy at that election if it is found when the voting papers are checked

that he himself has returned a voting paper with the declarations thereon duly filled in;
(c) for any other matters which appear to the Secretary of State to be incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section, including such amendments of the Fifth Schedule to the Act of 1918 and any other enactment (including any Order in Council made under that Act) as appear to him to be necessary for carrying those provisions into effect.

(8) In the application of this Section to the combined Scottish University constituency any reference to the returning officer shall be construed, in relation to any elector, as a reference to the registrar of the University in the register for which that elector is registered.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Consequential provisions.)

(1) For the purpose of enabling the rights of voting by post conferred by this Part of this Act (including the rights conferred in relation to university elections) to be effectively exercised, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) the counting of the votes at any general election to which this Part of this Act applies shall, instead of beginning as soon as possible after the close of the poll, begin not earlier than nine o'clock in the morning of the twentieth day thereafter, and any vote cast by post under this Part of this Act shall, if received before the beginning of the said twentieth day, be as effective and be dealt with as nearly as may be in the same way as if received before the close of the poll;
(b) the time appointed for the meeting of the new Parliament after any such election shall be any time not less than forty clear days, instead of any time not less than twenty clear days, after the Proclamation summoning the Parliament, or, if the time for holding the election is extended under section two of the Act of 1943 so as to allow for the preparation of a register, after the coming into force of the register;
(c) provision shall be made by electoral registration regulations for entitling any candidate at any such election to send to each person entitled to vote by post in the constituency under this Part of this Act any document containing matter relating to the election only (subject to such limits of size and weight as may be prescribed) by having it enclosed in the same cover as the ballot paper or voting paper to be sent to that person;
(d) the arrangements made by a government department under section ten of the Act of 1943, and under that section as extended by electoral registration regulations to war workers abroad, shall include arrangements for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) any person on whom rights are conferred under this Part of this Act with respect to voting by post shall—



(i) have an effective opportunity of exercising those rights, and in such manner as not to disclose the way in which he has voted or intends to vote;
(ii) receive such instructions as to the effect of this Part of this Act and any regulations made under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, and such other assistance, as may be reasonably sufficient in connection with the exercise of those rights.


(2) For the purpose of paragraph (c) of the foregoing subsection candidates who are, under paragraph (4) of Part V of the First Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, deemed to be joint candidates at an election shall be treated as a single candidate.
(3) The right of sending election matter to persons entitled to vote by post under this Part of this Act which is conferred by the said paragraph (c) shall, in relation to such persons, be in lieu of the right to send election matter post free conferred by subsection (2) of section thirty-three of the Act of 1918.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.— [Extension of persons who may be appointed proxies for service voters at university elections.]

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Third Schedule to the Act of 1918 as it applies to university constituencies by virtue of Section thirty-six of that Act, any person may be appointed proxy to vote at a university election, and may vote as proxy at such an election, on behalf of a member of the forces, seaman or other person if—

(a) he could be appointed to vote, and could vote, on his behalf at that election if the constituency were not a university constituency; and
(b) his proxy paper is issued to him in pursuance of an application made in accordance with Section eighteen of the Act of 1943 (which enlarges the right of members of the forces and seamen while that Act is in force to appoint a proxy in a university constituency and contains provisions for identifying their applications) or with that Section as extended by electoral registrations to war workers abroad.

(2) Any proxy paper issued before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly issued if it would have been validly issued by virtue of the foregoing Sub-section, had that Sub-section then been in force.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of the Act of 1943 as to civilian proxies at Parliamentary elections.)

Where electoral registration regulations provide that an application by any person for his name to be entered in the absent voters list is to be made as respects a prescribed period,

a person whose name is so entered shall not be entitled to appoint a proxy otherwise than for that period or for so much thereof as remains unexpired at the time of the appointment (without prejudice however to his power to cancel the appointment); and accordingly, in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph one of the First Schedule to the Act of 1943 for the words "at any election initiated during that period or any part thereof specified in the application," there shall be substituted the words "at an election for which that list will be used."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Proxy voting by service voters at local government elections.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who is registered under this Act as a local government elector for any local government area—

(a) in the service register; or
(b) in pursuance of an application under this Act made by a member of the forces, seaman or other person on a form of declaration of residence, in the business premises register;

shall be entitled to vote by proxy at any local government election for that area.

(2) A person shall not be entitled to vote by proxy under this section except by the proxy appointed by him for the purpose of parliamentary elections by virtue of the declaration of residence or application in pursuance of which he is registered in the said register:

Provided that the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply to persons disqualified as peers from registration as parliamentary electors, but electoral registration regulations shall provide for conferring on them as nearly as may be the like rights as to the appointment of a proxy, and the cancellation of any such appointment, for the purposes of this section as if they were not so disqualified.


(3) A person may vote in person at a local government election, notwithstanding that he is entitled to vote by proxy at that election, but only if he applies for a ballot paper before a ballot paper has been issued to the proxy, and in that event the appointment of the proxy shall be void as respects that election.


Nothing in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-two of the Local Government Act, 1933, or in paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Section fifty-six of the London Government Act, 1939, shall be taken to penalise a person who, after a proxy appointed by him has voted under this Section, applies for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting in person.
(4) Paragraphs 12, 15 (except sub-paragraphs (a) and (d) thereof) 16 and 17 of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1943 (which relate to the voting of proxies at parliamentary elections) shall apply to the voting of proxies at local government elections under this Section.
(5) The Second Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933, or the London Government Act, 1939, as the case may be,


and any other enactment regulating the holding of local government elections, including any provisions imposing penalties in connection with voting at those elections, shall apply to persons voting as proxies under this Section as they apply to electors, subject however to the provisions of this Section and to such modifications as may be prescribed for the purpose of adapting them to voting by proxy.
(6) In the application of this Section to Scotland—

(a) for any reference to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-two of the Local Government Act, 1933, there shall be substituted a reference to Section twenty-four of the Ballot Act, 1872, as extended or applied by any subsequent enactment;
(b) Sub-section (5) shall have effect as if the reference to the Second Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933, or the London Government Act, 1939, were omitted.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application and Interpretation of Part.)

(1) This Part of this Act, so far as it relates to voting by post at parliamentary elections, shall apply only to general elections initiated during the period beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and ending with the thirty-first day of December in that year or with such later date as may be prescribed.

Provided that if a general election is initiated before the end of March in that year (so that no May, 1945, register comes into force under this Act) a reference to the tenth day of September shall be substituted for the reference in this Sub-section to the first day of April.

(2) In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the means hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—
declaration of residence" means a Service declaration and any corresponding declaration to be made for the purposes of the Act of 1943 by a person engaged in war work abroad;
postal voting areas" means the United Kingdom and such other areas as may be prescribed;
prescribed" means prescribed by electoral registration regulations.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to make supplementary orders as to local elections.)

(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of special circumstances affecting any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1933, or the London Government Act, 1939, the provisions of Sections four and five of this Act are, in relation to that authority or some part of the members thereof, either inapplicable or in-

adequate without some addition or modification, he may by order make such provision as appears to him to accord with the principles of those Sections and to be necessary or expedient, in consequence of the passing of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, and the Acts amending and continuing that Act and of the repeal of those Acts by this Act, for the purpose of securing that the authority shall be, and be deemed always to have been, duly constituted.

(2) The Secretary of State may also by order make such provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the said Sections and, in particular for the holding of any election required thereby to be held.
(3) Any provision of any order made under this Section may apply either generally to any class of local authority or to any particular local authority.
(4) Any order made under this Section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act), or anything in any instrument made by virtue of any such enactment.
(5) Any order made under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, but Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any order so made.
(6) If either House of Parliament within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which any such order is laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
(7) In reckoning any such period of twenty-eight days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(8) In the application of this Section to Scotland for any reference to a local authority there shall be substituted a reference to a county, town or district council and for any reference to Sections four and five of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to Sections nine and ten of this Act.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We have now left the Clauses which deal with postal voting, and this new Clause has to deal with one point with regard to the local government elections. As I explained very shortly, in relation to the anticipatory Amendment to this Clause, a number of different situations have arisen with regard to boroughs. In some cases, they have had a special election for extra councillors. In other cases, they have only held their Charter election,


and in still further cases, they have not yet held their Charter election. In other cases, there are alterations of boundaries which have either just been made or are pending. The result is that Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill will not work without alteration or modification in certain cases, and this Clause empowers the Secretary of State to make an Order in accordance with the principle of these Clauses to deal with the situation consequent on the existence and repeal of the Local Elections Act, 1939, and to secure that the local authority in question is and always has been clearly and properly constituted. That is the gist of Sub-section (1) of the Clause.

5.0 p.m.

Under Sub-section (2) the Secretary of State is empowered to secure an election in every case and the other Sub-sections contain certain consequential and necessary provisions. The Committee will observe that as we are dealing with strictly transitional problems arising out of the present situation there is the general power under Sub-section (4) that the Order will have effect notwithstanding the statutory provisions. That is a power which is only used in transitional matters like the present and it will be seen that it is subject to Parliamentary control, because it has to be laid under Sub-section (5) and is subject to a negative Resolution under Sub-section (6). The effect of the new Clause will be that whatever be the private difficulty of each class of boroughs or each borough, it will be able to have its election and its constitution will be preserved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of plural voting.)

No person shall vote more than once in any election provided that this shall not prevent the elector from choosing the constituency in which he desires to vote, if he is qualified to vote in respect of more than one constituency.—[Lady Megan Lloyd George.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the Clause is perfectly plain. It is to abolish plural voting. It

seeks to establish the principle, which must surely be at the basis of a full democracy, that every citizen should have equal political rights, in short, the principle of "one man one vote." I believe that there is an even more graphic explanation which I shall not put forward this afternoon. It is not intended in this Clause to do away with the business vote as such. If the Clause is carried the registration of business premises continues but the elector would not be entitled to vote in two constituencies. He would have to choose between the constituency in which he resides or the constituency in which he carries on his business. One anachronism in this respect has already been done away with in this Bill. The second-hand right of the spouse to vote has gone and the business voter can no longer obtain the vote by virtue of the husband's or wife's business qualification. But, curiously enough, this anomaly remains. What is the reason for its retention? What is the justification for it?
I do not think that there is any reason in equity why one class of citizen should be singled out for special treatment, why one section of the community should have a double political power and should have twice the influence upon the election that his neighbour has. One of the powerful arguments advanced in favour of this qualification is that it is very important that universities and the business community should be represented in this House. I do not think that anyone would controvert that argument. It is important that great sections of the community should be represented in this House, but that is no reason why they should have special privileges: rights as citizens, but not privileges over and above those of their neighbours. I have heard very eloquent pleas put forward in defence of the business vote. It has been suggested that an injustice will be done here to the small business man, but I would like to point out that in nine cases out of ten the small business man lives over his shop or in the vicinity of his business. It is in fact the man with larger and wider business interests who is going to be affected. But that is not really the point at issue. The point is that we are attempting in this Bill—and in some measure I think we have succeeded in the changes that we are making—to secure that the value of each elector's vote shall as far as possible be equal, but for some extra-


ordinary reason we allow the principle to be by-passed in this particular respect.
There is one argument used with regard to universities which I should like to mention. It may be said that if an elector has to choose between voting as an university elector or in the place where he resides, it may mean that a great many university electors will vote in the place where they reside, and that therefore the electorate at the universities will be extremely small. The electorate of universities is already very small compared with those of other constituencies, but if the new Education Act means anything at all, if our plans for the future in this country materialise, the population of the universities will increase very largely. It has already done so in Wales and in Scotland. When a Member for the University of Wales was first returned to this House some 20 years ago, I believe the electorate was about 1,600. When my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) was returned some little time ago, the electorate had gone up to something like 9,000 or 10,000. We hope that England in this respect will follow the more enlightened example of Scotland and of Wales.
We have not had an adequate reason given at all up to now why plural voting has not been abolished in this Bill, and I am looking forward very much to the explanation which is to be given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not know whether he will be able to defend either his wings or his spurs. Perhaps his spurs will be more important than his wings, at any rate in the months to come. The proposal to abolish plural voting was put before Mr. Speaker's Conference and, as is well known to the Committee, was turned down by a very considerable majority. This principle has been advocated certainly by hon. Gentlemen on these benches and it has been strongly advocated by hon. Members above the gangway and I hope very much that we shall have their support in the Division Lobby later on to-day. This Bill represents a substantial advance in many directions. We have had an extension of the franchise, we have had greater facilities for the Forces to vote. In many respects, it is a good Bill, but I cannot understand why we have left this pocket of privilege unchallenged and I shall take this opportunity of challenging it to-day.

Mr. Graham White: I support this new Clause and, in view of the rather potent and, I believe, unanswerable arguments which have been given to the Committee by my Noble Friend the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) I shall trespass only a very short time indeed on the patience of the Committee. The principle which is embodied in this new Clause is one with which we are all familiar. As was said a few minutes ago, it is one which is the most familiar in this country—the principle of "one man, one vote." It is sometimes embellished, for the purpose of emphasis, by the addition of certain adjectives—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"]—but speaking with all seriousness, it is a vital principle and the very basis of democracy. How to substitute ballots for bullets is a matter which is causing us very grave pre-occupation at the present time, and it is one of the most vital questions. It has even been suggested that we should be called in to advise the participants and to supervise the elections. I cannot imagine any advice going from this country to any other country in that predicament which would contain any proposals for plural voting. Put in that light, it seems to me absolutely indefensible, and it is really indefensible in this country. My Noble Friend said she would listen with interest to the arguments which would be put up against this Clause but perhaps there will be none and it will be accepted.

Sir Alfred Beit (St. Pancras, South-East): If the noble Lady will allow me to say so, she has really destroyed her own argument by her opening remarks, when she said that she had no objection to universities being represented in this House. I was glad to hear her say this because I share her view on this point, and if there were no special representation then clearly this Clause could not stand, because then the position would no longer arise. The point of my remarks is that if you do allow special representation to continue—and I am glad to know that is the case—it is quite absurd to destroy the electorate upon which that representation would be based.

5.15 p.m.

I will give two instances of what would happen. If we take the City of London, as perhaps the most important of the great


business centres, at the present time the voters comprise a large number of people who have offices there. Under the Noble Lady's suggestion, they would still be entitled to vote, but the fact is that the great majority of the people would vote from their own homes and the City of London would return Members whose electors consisted of charladies and office cleaners. Then, if I may take the case of the universities, an even more absurd situation would arise under this proposal, because there the electors are graduates who have the postal vote and they, even more surely than the business men to whom I referred in the other case, would, under this proposal cease to exercise that postal vote, as it would be more interesting to them to exercise their vote at home. The result would be that we would have in this House some twelve hon. Members representing the universities, many of whom might be returned on a poll of a few hundreds. Surely, if we are to continue with this special representation, as I hope we will, for which excellent arguments have been advanced from time to time, we must allow that representation to be backed up by a reasonable electorate both in size and, particularly, in quality.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think it only courteous to the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey—I do not think she should yet be called "Noble Lady"; it is on the Order Paper but it is incorrect—[HON. MEMBERS: "She will be"]—to say a few words on this Clause. She has put forward the case of the plural vote, and this perhaps of all the matters raised in this Bill is the one really party political issue, and I think the Committee has to face up to that perfectly straightforwardly. Nearly all the rest of the matters have been above party, but this is a question on which parties in the House have had very strong views, and at certain times have voted in favour of those views. The Speaker's Conference was confronted with this question as the leading political question that came before it. In other times and places there has been violent conflict over this question. What did the Speaker's Conference do? We looked at the party issue and we said, "Cannot we come to some compromise that will go some way to meet one side and some way to meet the other?" On this matter of plural voting we found a compromise.

It is not what some of us wanted. Most of the hon. Gentlemen coming from the party opposite would have liked plural voting to remain in precisely the form in which it has been for some time. We, on the other hand, would have liked to abolish plural voting altogether.
The question was whether we could get some modus vivendi between us which would mark some progress from our point of view in the question of plural voting, and yet would not meet with the entire opposition of the Members coming from the party opposite. We found it in the proposals of the Speaker's Conference. Those proposals were, that while abolishing the vote of the spouse of the business occupier, we should retain the business vote itself, and the intention of that compromise was that the plural vote should be sustained so far as the actual business occupier was concerned, but not sustained so far as the spouse was concerned—generally the wife, but it might in some cases be the husband of the business occupier. That, therefore, was a compromise.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend but I am sure he would not wish to do me an injustice. The compromise to which he has referred was one to which I was not a party, nor was I involved in it or bound in any sense by it. I am sure he would wish to make that clear.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I quite agree with that statement, which is perfectly correct. I intended to explain later on that this compromise only binds those who actually took part in it. It certainly does not bind my hon. Friend, and it does not bind people who were not actually members of the Speaker's Conference.
Before I come to that, however, I would like to cast one eye upon the practical effect of what is left of plural voting. I have seen statements in the newspapers that plural voting, as left by the Speaker's Conference, amounted to 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of the total number of electors. That statement is entirely and utterly incorrect, and I will tell the Committee broadly what is the position. There are two types of plural voting which will remain in being after this Bill becomes law. There are those who possess the university vote and also the residential vote, those who possess the business qualification vote and also the residential vote, and I suppose there could be those who


would vote for the business and who would also vote for the university. The importance of the university vote is that they have 12 seats in the House of Commons, and to that extent the plural vote, in the sense in which it can be used, does return 12 separate Members to this House who would not be returned unless there was a university franchise. They are voted for by some people who would vote for residence or business, and to that extent it is an extra vote that they give.
With regard to the university vote, there was a certain amount of compromise about it. The arrangement was that the university vote should be open to all graduates without any fee whatever. That is outside the provisions now being discussed, but it enters into the question as to what extent plural voting is left. There are 12 seats, and the number of electors for them is likely to increase in the days to come.
Now we come to the business vote. The total business vote, before we cut it in half, was about 350,000 votes. Of that number, roughly 150,000 go by Clause 2 in this Bill, which takes away from the spouse the business qualifying vote. Therefore, you have 200,000 left. If you take out the City of London, which is the most prominent illustration, and certain divisions in Liverpool and Manchester, you have left something like 100,000 votes distributed over the whole country, as compared with over 20,000,000 votes for the ordinary residential qualification. This does not affect the theory of the question, but it is just as well for us to know as practical people what is the practical effect and I think Members of the Committee, who are considering how to vote on this matter, should realise the magnitude of the problem that we have to face in this Bill. It is a matter of 12 seats which are plural voting seats as university seats, and apart from that some 200,000 electors who will get the double vote—the residential vote and the business qualification vote. That reduces the matter to its proper dimensions.
I shall vote for the Bill as it stands because now that one half of the compromise has been put into the Bill in Clause 2 I am going to support the other half of the compromise at this stage. It may be that some of my party do not feel they can toe the line of a compromise and they, of course,

may feel that they must go their own way. But I hope a good many will feel that we in a sense were their representatives and that in making a compromise, half of which we have already secured, they will not wish to take a course which will be contrary to the compromise which we who, to some extent, represented them voluntarily made.

The Solicitor-General: I hope the Committee will approve of my intervention at this moment because I am very anxious that the argument in this matter should be maintained on what I consider is the true basis and proper plane on which it has been put by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). We are not here discussing in vacuo the merits of plural voting, either in its manifestation in the business seats or in the university seats. We are discussing the position in which this Committee finds itself after the Speaker's Conference has made its recommendations. We know what the position is at the present time, persons may not vote more than once in any constituency and not more than twice at a General Election. In other words, they can exercise their home vote and, if they have one, either their business vote or university vote. That being the position, the question was considered by the Speakers' Conference and it was published that the motion to abolish the plural vote was rejected by 25 votes to six. That expressed, as my right hon. Friend opposite has said, the approval of the compromise that was arrived at. What we have called, for convenience, "the spouse vote," has disappeared, and, apart from the university vote, the business vote has been approximately reduced by half, from the comparatively small figure of 350,000, to the very small figure of 175,000 or 200,000, as it will exist in the Bill.
On that point, the hon. Member for the Isle of Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) is perfectly entitled to join issue with me and show that the question of principle still remains and to say, in the words of Captain Marryat, that it is no justification for the infant that the baby is a very small one. I respectfully join issue with that approach. I do not see that English political life has suffered because on a practical point like this the great parties in the State have been ready to make their advances by give and take


on such an issue. Here, as my right hon. Friend has said, it must be a matter for the individual conscience, but at the same time we are not in the least ashamed that we work by party machinery and, equally, we are not ashamed when those who are the representatives of that party machinery come to an arrangement which is practical and which at the same time shows a substantial give and take on each side. Therefore, I approach this issue, and I commend it to the Committee, as one for which neither side need apologise for having come to a compromise and where they can, with perfect honour and reason, carry that compromise into an actuality by rejecting this Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

I should not like my hon. Friend who moved the Clause to believe that there are not arguments which can be put the other way. Clearly the existence of these business communities which depend on the exercise of the business vote can be supported. Clearly the giving of a vote to those who have taken an educational qualification which the country wishes to encourage can be defended. I only say that it is really not relevant at this stage to go into the intricate variations and complications of these defences. The issue before the Committee is whether, having arrived at this compromise, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one half of the compromise having been loyally carried out and approved in the passing of Clause 2, it is really right, taking politics as we approach them, and working them on the party basis on which we are proud to work, because we all consider that parties are merely the vehicles of service to the State, the operation of the agreements of parties is something that we are prepared to honour, treasure and respect. Approaching it in that way, I say that the issue is whether this compromise is going to be maintained and approved, and I ask the Committee to reject the Clause.

Sir Percy Harris: We have just heard two remarkable speeches. I do not know which was the more remarkable, that of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke before the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman did not defend

this principle. He merely took cover under the word "compromise." I do not know what concession he got in return for giving away a sound principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman made no attempt to defend it either except that it was convenient to his party. He said that party was a good thing and, as his party was likely to gain—

The Solicitor-General: I did not say that. I said two of the great parties of the State—I do not want my words to be offensive—had come to an agreement upon it. One party was giving away the wife's vote and the other was allowing plural voting to remain to this extent. The Conservative Party has carried through its part of the arrangement by passing Clause 2, which does away with the wife's vote, and I said I saw no harm in a country working under party Government having party arrangements.

Sir P. Harris: I think all that the hon. and learned Gentleman has succeeded in doing is to give ample proof of the necessity of having a strong party Government. The Liberal Party moves with the times.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): This is getting very far from the Clause.

Sir P. Harris: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have a solid argument in favour of the two-party system. Because his party was likely to gain—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the two- or three-party system. What the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to was an agreement of certain parties on a certain matter. That does not entitle us to discuss the value of different parties.

Sir P. Harris: The Chair did not call the hon. and learned Gentleman to Order, and I am justified in exercising my right to reply. But I do not wish to pursue the matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Baronet can take any steps he likes, but I adhere to my Ruling and I intend to carry it out. We cannot discuss the value of the two-party system on a new Clause which deals with a very simple matter.

Sir P. Harris: It is the hon. and learned Gentleman who was arguing. I was not going to discuss it. I do not think it is germane to the subject. I was challenging the soundness of his argument. I


can understand hon. Members opposite justifying the plural vote. It is an arguable proposition that some privileged people should have more than one vote. I have heard it seriously put forward that, if a man had the advantage of education, he was more qualified than an unfortunate person who did not have it. I do not accept the argument, but it is an intelligible one to put forward. There is also an argument for property being entitled to a second vote. The hon. and learned Gentleman justified this arrangement on the ground that there are only 170,000 of these privileged people. But it does not go according to property. If a man has his place of business in the same place where he lives he only gets one vote, whereas if he lives outside the town he gets two. That is quite indefensible. Why should there be 170,000 privileged people who get the vote just by the accident of where they live and the fact that they have a place of business in a particular town and happen to live outside it? We are claiming to be the champions of democracy, and we are very near showing the world an ideal Parliamentary system. In no other part of the British Commonwealth is there a plural vote—certainly not in Australia or in New Zealand. I am not so clear about Canada, because conditions vary from Province to Province. It is indefensible when we are attempting at the end of an old Parliament, after many years of facing up to this problem of electoral reform, to keep an anomaly like this.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think he has done something very wonderful in doing away with what he calls the spouse's vote. I remember the history of that. It was never intended during the last war to give the wives of property owners a vote but, when the electoral experts came to interpret the Act, they found that by the wording of the law, when we had extended votes to women, not only the owner of property but his wife was equally entitled. It is a reform long overdue, and it ought to have gone away by general agreement. I do not consider that it is a valuable concession. It is impossible to justify the anomaly of plural voting as we now have it.
One of the strongest arguments put forward was the necessity of retaining the university vote. It is rather a historic anomaly. I happen to be a university voter. I have sometimes voted for a man

who has got into Parliament, and I have a certain sentimental affection for that vote. It is not unreasonable to say that you must make up your mind to exercise your franchise either for your university or for your place of residence. Why should you have two votes because you have the advantage of being at a university, while the ordinary citizen has to be satisfied with one vote? This Committee ought to exercise its own judgment. It is not a question of party. There are a great number of good Tory democrats. There are the young Tories, who boast with pride that they are democrats. Let them give evidence of it to-day and prove to the world that they are democrats by helping us to do away with this anomaly. Let us retain the university vote and the business vote, but do not let a person exercise his residential vote as well. Leave him to use his discretion. It would be very unfortunate if we parted with this Bill leaving this strange mediæval anomaly in it.

Mr. Isaacs: I ask the Committee to support the new Clause, not only on the principle of "one man, one vote," but because of my experience in my constituency. For centuries it was an appendix of the City of London and there is still part of the city called the Bridge Ward for which an alderman is appointed, but which does not actually exist. Merchants came into Southwark hundreds of years ago and there are still many merchants there. I know a building in the Northern part of the constituency where there are four, five and six people registered as business voters because they have a business address there. I would not go so far as to say that they do it for the purpose of getting the vote, but it is strange that they should exist. The voters in North Southwark resent the horde of people who come into the division to vote on polling day because they have a business address in the constituency. With regard to the university vote, I cannot understand why a man who went to Oxford has a second vote while I who went to Hoxton have not. All the education I got was in the university of the streets of London, and I do not see why anybody who got his education in the university of Cambridge should have another vote. I try to be a loyal member of my party, but I cannot vote for a proposition which is against the principle of "one man, one vote."

Mr. H. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) put up a strange argument when he appealed to the young Tories to show that they are democrats by voting for this new Clause. I am sure the people of Britain are not so simple as to be taken in by a dodge of that sort. It would mean that they would vote for giving away a slight advantage so as to be able to say, "Look what democrats we are." That is the sort of thing the Tory Reform Committee set out to do. They prove that they are progressive on unimportant issues, but remain Tories all the same. I am glad that this recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that plural voting should not be abolished has now been brought into the light of day and that we are able to see publicly that it is a compromise between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. I am glad that it is now recognised that this matter was not decided on its merits, but on what was thought to be to the advantage of the two majority parties.

5.45 p.m.

The Labour Party have not been very wise in agreeing to this compromise, and they would have done better to stick to principle. I feel that as an independent Member I must express my disapproval of plural voting. There is no question of argument at all. Either you believe in the principle of "one man, one vote," or you do not. Arguments, if they can be called arguments, have been put forward that special interests should be represented. If there were anything in those arguments, it would be logical to say that all managers of businesses should have two votes. If that is logical, why not say that the manager of a large chain stores should have three votes, and a director of a large company have four, and so on? If it is maintained that a person who possesses a university degree should have an extra vote, why not say that the person who has a doctor's degree should have three votes and one who is qualified in a professional institution have one-and-a-half votes, and so on? One might build up a case like that if one really believed that it was a good thing to have extra votes in accordance with the stiffness of the examination one had passed or the responsibilities that one had in business.

If we carried the argument to its logical conclusion, everyone in the country would have not just one vote, but an educational vote or business vote, or both. That would reduce the whole thing to an absurdity. The only sensible and democratic thing to do is to accept the principle of "one man, one vote."

Mr. Stephen: My party was not committed to this agreement. When the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) told us he was a plural voter, he made a strong appeal to the Committee, and I want to make another. It is that the Government should leave this question to a free vote of the Committee. If that were done nobody would have much heart-burning afterwards, whatever the result. I have not exercised my university vote sometimes, because I have not liked a candidate. While I can see that there is an argument that can be put forward with regard to both the university vote and the business vote, it is a bad argument, for the true democratic principle is "one man, one vote." If this matter concerns only 170,000 votes, why not give Members of the Committee the satisfaction of a little freedom from the party machine to-day and enable them to decide on a free vote? This would show a little courage on the part of the Government. Possibly Members would feel that they were not entirely "Yes" men in the House of Commons if they were allowed in this matter to vote free from party control. I throw that out as a suggestion for an additional compromise and I hope that it will receive the support of other Members of the Committee.

Sir Geoffrey Mander: I do not feel that the appeal which has just been made is likely to be very effective because a free vote of the Committee as at present composed would not be likely to furnish the result which my hon. Friend desires; but a free vote of the country might have a very different result. It is clear, as a result of this Debate, that the House of Commons has not been compromised in any way and is free to make a decision in regard to plural voting and so also is the Liberal Party. This system has been dying for a long time—an unconscionably long time—and it might just as well be brought to an end to-day. In the course of the Debate suggestions have been made that certain unfortunate


results would arise if the Clause were adopted. It is said that there would be very few university voters left and that the City of London would also have only a very few voters. I am not sure that that would be the case. People have very mixed feelings about these matters. Some are very much attached to their university qualifications and large numbers of them might select that vote just as other large numbers of people who work in the City of London and make their money there might feel so attached to the City as, naturally, to give their votes in the place where they have amassed their wealth.
Those points can be decided only by experience. After the franchise has been exercised by people we shall be able to see where they have decided to vote. The Boundary Commissioners will then come in and make the necessary adjustments in the constituencies in accordance with the way people have opted, either for the City of London or their universities.
The point that really appeals to me is that the measure is being put forward mainly for the purpose of getting soldiers who are serving overseas the best possible opportunity of exercising their franchise at the General Election. What message are we proposing to send them as a result of this vote to-night? Are we going to say to these men: "You are serving in all the battlefields of the world, but when it comes to exercising the franchise the vast majority of you, not all, will have one vote while certain people who have the good fortune to possess a business qualification and a certain measure of wealth or have had the great advantage of a university education, will not be on a par with you. They will have two votes." I cannot feel happy about that message being sent to those who are now in the Services. For that reason I very much hope that the Government will decide to accept the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not recognise this as a compromise. The whole feeling in the country is against plural voting. Conscious of that, the party opposite has moved a little way, but is holding on to as much as possible. That is not a compromise. There is no argument in favour of plural voting. The Home Secretary knows it. He set out some 40 years ago to build up a party based upon recogni-

tion of the fact that rent is robbery and profit is plunder. I do not know how many Members are here from a university because they have some special educational qualification, but if you got 12 university Members and sat them anywhere and then took any other 12 Members I do not think you would see any difference between them from the point of view of intelligence or usefulness. I guarantee that any other 12 Members would stand out well above them in regard to usefulness. Nobody can justify the demand for plural voting for universities or businesses. The intelligent proposition which ought to commend itself to the Home Secretary is "One man one vote." If a man wants to have a vote for the university or for the business he can do so, but there should be no two votes for any individual.

Miss Rathbone: I am certainly not going to join issue with my hon. Friend who has just spoken or to dispute his assertion that any 12 hon. Members chosen by lot, would be a better bunch than the 12 university representatives. But there is a principle at stake which I believe justifies the plural vote for university Members on its merits. Of the property vote I will say nothing. There are two reasons for having university representation at all. One is that it is desirable that there should be in the House of Commons a group, however small, of hon. Members who are free from the ties of party discipline. In fact, after the next General Election I believe that all of them will be what most of them are now in effect, Independents. The principle is that you should have a group of Members who represent something of the spirit of the universities—its impartial attitude towards truth, which is scarcely possible for Members of political parties. The second reason is rather different. Is it not true that nearly every other big interest, industrial and occupational, has its representatives here? How many representatives are there in this House of the mining industry, and of the textile industry, agriculture, shipping, etc.?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Lady say how many representatives of the university and of the old school tie there are on the other side of the House?

Miss Rathbone: Anyone who will study their records will find there is not much of the spirit of the old school tie.

Mr. George Griffiths: The miners' representatives get here by one vote, not two.

Miss Rathbone: That is so, but let me continue my argument. All these big industrial groups have a strong representation in this House when their interests are affected. There are agricultural representatives, mining representatives, and so on. In one area of the electorate—the learned professions—that is not so because they are scattered over the whole country, and they are not numerous enough to really pull weight enough in any one territorial constituency to seriously influence the election of a single territorial member anywhere. Therefore this otherwise missing element is very usefully supplied by the university representatives. The answer to that I can foresee. It is, "Then have your university representatives, but why give the graduates two votes?" It is simply a matter of commonsense. University representation would be very chancy and uncertain if, until the day came, it was not known whether graduates would use their university vote or their residential vote. As there is a relatively small number of university voters why not, as they now have plural votes, go on with the system, because it is a means of securing in this House a kind of representation which, for the double reason I have given, is not otherwise secured in our Parliamentary democracy?

Sir Arthur Salter: I do not propose to discuss the principle of plural voting or the merits of university representatives personally. Nor do I propose to discuss the question of whether it is a good thing to have university seats. The House has decided that. Moreover, it is true that if this new Clause is adopted it would not abolish university seats. I want to make one point only. It is this. I think that at this stage of the Bill, bearing in mind all that has preceded it in the Speaker's Conference and the Report of that Conference, the Committee should really look at the practical effect a new Clause of this kind would have in changing the character of different electorates. I think there would be little change in local constituencies. In these, one would have to go a long way to find an instance where a member would be changed because of this Clause. But in the case of a university it is quite different.
We are to have university representatives, and I think we should all desire that the electorate of those universities should not be fickle, capricious and chancy. What would happen if this Clause were adopted, is that people who voted for a university candidate would mainly consist of people who had chosen to vote for their university rather than for their local constituency because of a consideration that has nothing to do with university representation as such, namely, whether in their local constituency there was an overwhelming majority for either a Conservative, Liberal or Labour candidate, so that their vote would be wasted there. I do not want the university representation to depend on a chance electorate resulting from the condition of the relative strength of the parties in local constituencies. I think that while university seats are retained, the underlying electoral basis would be made chancy and uncertain by the adoption of this Clause, a Clause which at the same time would have very little effect, if any, in the rest of the constituencies in the country.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) made a very good speech and enjoyed herself in moving this new Clause. I know how thoroughly she enjoys herself on these occasions, when she finds she is able to be on the left of a Labour Minister, and possibly on the left of some members of the Labour Party. While she was speaking, I was trying to remember, but could not—I have sent round to the Library, but do not expect to hear in time—whether, during the days of Liberal Government before the last war, there were Debates on plural voting either on Private Bills or Motions. I have a strong recollection that there were and that somehow nothing was done about it and that the plural voter—

Lady Megan Lloyd George: That is 30 years ago.

Mr. Morrison: The Liberal Party was a great progressive party 30 years ago.

Mr. Gallacher: They have a bad record. Do not follow them.

Mr. Morrison: I do not propose to do so, and I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) either. My recollection is that there


were some such discussions. If there were not it is most curious that the plural voter and the vote of the spouse were preserved in those days, and nothing was done about it.

Sir P. Harris: If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory he will find that the vote of the spouse did not exist before the last war; it was an accident. Women did not have the vote until after the last war, and by the interpretation of the lawyers they automatically got that vote also, which was never intended by Parliament.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Member is on a fair point. There was no women's vote in those days. Therefore the point did not arise. It seems to me it was a great pity they refused to give the women the vote in that period. The women's vote came in 1918, and it was completed in 1929. It is no use my standing up and seeking to defend the principle of plural voting. I cannot do it because my convictions are not that way. In the second place no one would believe me if I said they were. I will leave it to the Committee as to which is the more convincing argument. I do not believe in plural voting. I would abolish it to-day if I could and if I had a Parliamentary majority. But let us face the facts about it. There are a lot of other people who believe in the business vote, and we have heard two hon. Members, who are not unprogressive, the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and one of the Members for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), defend in respect of the university the principle of plural voting, having very carefully kept clear from defending that principle in respect of the business vote. There are plenty of other hon. Members who could do that with some effect, and who believe in it. What the Committee really has before it is not so much the narrow merits of the question, on which there is no doubt where I stand and where a lot of other people stand. What the Committee has before it is the question whether it is prepared to do a deal on this, and, indeed, on a lot of other things, too.

Dr. Morgan: Black market.

Mr. Morrison: Do not talk about black markets. That has nothing to do with it. Why my hon. Friend should have the black market on his mind I do not know.

Dr. Morgan: Because it is so appropriate.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend may know more about it than I do; I am an innocent Home Secretary. It is the capacity for compromise that has saved the British and the British Constitution time after time. It is the incapacity for compromise that has landed a lot of other countries in very grave difficulties. We had a Speaker's Conference, representative of the main political parties in this House. The purpose of the Speaker's Conference, under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, was to review the various arrangements for the conduct of elections. It was under the Speaker because he was impartial, and it represented all parties for the very purpose of seeing whether accommodation could be reached on a number of other matters which would otherwise be controversial. But for that purpose, we would not have had the Speaker's Conference; the Government would have made up their own mind, and brought forward their own proposals. There have been previous Speaker's Conferences in the days of the Labour Government and of the last war, and their existence was for the very purpose of seeing whether the various political parties, sitting round a table, could give and take, compromise, give concessions, take concessions, and come to a common arrangement over the whole field. They were for the purpose of compromise. If, when the compromise is made, everybody is going to act as if there had been no Conference, it seems to me that the utility of the Speaker's Conference will not be so great. It is not only a matter of plural voting. There is also the assimilation of the Parliamentary and local government franchises. I venture to say that if even this Government, with a predominance of Conservative Ministers had brought in a Bill for the merging of the Parliamentary and local government franchises out of the void, there would have been serious trouble from the Conservative Party. The fact that it went to the Speaker's Conference, and that there was give and take and argument about it, helped us to reach agreed recommendations.
Let us be perfectly frank and honest. What was the issue before the Labour Members of the Speaker's Conference on this question of plural voting, and what was the issue before the Conservative


Members? Conservative Members had to consider, "Ought we to give up anything, or to stand pat?" They could have stood pat: they had a majority. There was nothing I could have done about it if they had decided to stand pat. They did not. What they did was to give up the element in the plural vote which is the most difficult of defence—that is, the spouse in the case of the business voter. I am speaking for myself alone, but this is how it appears to me. Probably their minds may have worked in this way, telling them that in the case of the business voter as such you can make a case—I personally do not agree with that case—that because a man has a business, with a particular type of stake in the country, he ought to have a vote in that respect. You could argue that; I could argue very effectively against it, but that would have been the case put forward. But it would be very difficult to argue that because a man with a stake in the country in respect of a business is entitled to a business vote, his wife automatically is entitled to it as well, when she has not that particular economic or financial stake. On the merits, it was the easiest thing to give up. I do not know whether that was the motive or not, but they were willing to give up the spouse, they were not willing to give up the main voter, in respect of the business qualification.
What was the position of the Labour Members? The Liberal Members, it is true, opposed it. They were not in a responsible position, if I may say so, as the Labour Members were. They had little to gain, and little to lose. The Labour Members could either take the concession which the Conservatives gave, of throwing the spouse to the wolves—if you like, dropping the spouse—and maintaining the main business voter, or they would have had the alternative—there is no doubt about it—that there should be no change at all, because the Conservatives, undoubtedly, would not budge. What did these men and women say? [Interruption.] I wish my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) could control himself now and again. They said, "We can get this concession about the spouse or nothing; and the concession is nearly half the problem, so we will take it." Having taken it, they signed the Report, and those who were

members of the Conference must stand by, it.
I come to my Labour Friends opposite, to whom I would respectfully say this. I quite agree that they are not bound by the signature of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham [Laughter]. That is a very natural slip, and I must always be careful when there is any "East" in a constituency I have to mention. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) signed it, and other Labour Members of the Speaker's Conference signed it. I quite agree that that does not bind the Members of the Labour Party, and they are free, if they think it right, to vote against the compromise which their representatives on the Speaker's Conference accepted. I would only say that if I were not a Minister and I were sitting on the Benches opposite as a non-Ministerial Labour Member, these are the questions I should ask myself, preparatory to voting. I should say, "If I were in their position, could I have done better?" I think the answer is, "No." "If I were in their position, would I have taken the course they did?" I think the answer is "Yes." "If I had succeeded in getting the question of spouse out of the way, would I have done good business?" I think the answer is, "Yes." I would say, "If the men and woman we had on the Speaker's Conference have done that, and, on the whole, have done well, and have come to an accommodation, I think the right thing to do is to stand by them when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons. I have not got to do so, but they did well, they served their principles well, they came to an accommodation, and I am going to stand by them now that it has come to a vote in the House of Commons."
That is the spirit in which I would appeal to my hon. Friends opposite, not by putting on them any obligation to vote for the Government on this matter, but on the ground that their representatives did very well. In fact, all parties did very well; we made a great success of the Conference, and we are seeing the result. I think, in all the circumstances, that this is a decision which might well be accepted. I would like it better if my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey would withdraw the Clause, but I do not think she will, by the look of her.


There is nothing I can do about that, although the Liberal Party in its history has made many compromises—we all have. This is a nation that cannot help compromising: it sees particular charms in compromise; and, on the whole, I think that this is progress.
I think it is pretty remarkable progress, compared with what might have been expected, and I think that in all the circumstances,

the question is whether the Conference did well—and the Bill is based on the Conference. If it did well, taking it by and large, then I think the Committee, in all quarters, would be right in giving it support.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 123.

Division No. 3]
AYES.
[6.20 p.m.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Glanville, J. E.
Owen, Major Sir G.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Richards, R.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Guy, W. H.
Sloan, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Horabin, T. L.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Stephen, C.


Buchanan, G.
Hynd, J. B.
Stokes, R. R.


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Collindridge, F.
McKinlay, A. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Daggar, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Mender, Sir G. le M.
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Dobbie, W.
Manning, C. A. G.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)



Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Neal, H.
Lady Megan Lloyd George and


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, W. H.
Sir Percy Harris


Gallacher, W.
Oliver, G. H.





NOES.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Helmore, Air Commodore W.
Prior, Comdr. R. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Herbert, Petty-Officer A. P. (Oxf'd U.).
Pym, L. F.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Quibell, D. J. K.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beechman, N. A.
Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Boulton, Sir W. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Salt, E. W.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Jennings, R.
Salter, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Oxford U.)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sidney, Capt. W. P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bull, B. B.
Leach, W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Butcher, H. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Storey, S.


Cape, T.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cary, R. A.
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Colegate, W. A.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Colman, N. C. D.
McEntee, V. la T.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M. (N'flk, N.)
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Critchley, A.
Mathers, G.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorneycroft, Capt. G. E. P. (St'ff'd)


Drewe, C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Turton, R. H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gton, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Ward, Col. Sir A. (Hull)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Ellis, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Etherton, Ralph
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Fermoy, Lord
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Petherick, M.
Woodburn, A.


Gledhill, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
York, Major C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Price, M. P.
Major A. S. L. Young and




Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation to officers.)

(1) Any person (being a person employed by the council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district) who received in respect of work done by him in the standard year remuneration as returning officer at a local election other than an election to fill a casual vacancy, or in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or jurors' book and who by virtue of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof is not required to continue to do such or much of such work or whose emoluments are reduced below the emoluments received by him in respect of work done in the standard year by reason of his not being so required shall be deemed to have suffered direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act and shall be entitled to compensation for that loss from the council by which he is employed.
(2) In determining the compensation payable to any person who becomes entitled to compensation in pursuance of this Section the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933, shall apply with the following and any other necessary modifications:—

(a) any reference in that Schedule to an officer shall be construed as a reference to such person;
(b) any reference in that Schedule to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State;
(c) any emoluments which were received by such person in respect of work done by him during the standard year or during the period of five years ending with that year but which ceased to be received by him as a consequence of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, being in force shall be deemed to have been received by him immediately before the material date or during the period of five years next before the material date as the case may be;
(d) any period during which such person has been engaged in war service within the meaning of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, shall be reckoned for the purposes of the said Schedule as a period of service in his office and where any such period is so reckoned his emoluments during that period shall (subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph of this Sub-section) be deemed to be such as he would have received if he had not been engaged in war service.
(3) For the purposes of this Section and the enactments thereby applied the expression "emoluments" has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act, 1933, the expression "standard year" means in relation to work done by any person as returning officer at a local election the last year before the year nineteen hundred and forty in which such work was done by him and in relation to work done by any person in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or jurors' book the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the expression "local election" means an election of an alderman of a county or borough, or of a councillor of a county

borough, urban or rural district or parish, or of an elective auditor of a borough.—[Mr. G. Hutchinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the subject of compensation to officers of local authorities who will be affected by the changes in the arrangements for registration which will be made by this Bill. When we make changes in our local government arrangements which affect the position of the officers and which result in a reduction of their emoluments, it has, I think, always been an accepted principle in this Committee that provision is made for compensation in respect of the loss of emoluments which these officers would incur. In this Clause, it is intended to bring about that result irrespective of the alterations which this Bill makes in arrangements for registration. The Committee will see that it extends to officers who are employed by the council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district in the capacity of returning officer or in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or jurors' book. There are a certain number of officers who have hitherto been engaged in the arrangements which are made for the preparation of the register and jurors' books, for which they are remunerated, in the majority of cases, by the payment of fees.

6.30 p.m.

It appears to be the case that those officers will not be employed on work which hitherto they have been accustomed to perform. The result will be that they will not be entitled to receive the remuneration for the work which has hitherto been paid to them. That being so there will be a reduction, varying in degree, in the total emoluments which these officers are likely to receive when this Bill becomes law. Therefore, if the Committee follows what has been generally accepted as a principle for dealing with a situation of this nature, it would be right that we should insert in this Bill a Clause in the terms of the Clause which I am moving which would entitle those officers to claim compensation for the loss of the emoluments which they seem likely to sustain. These emoluments are in some cases received by way of fees and in some cases


they will be received by way of some form of special arrangement, but whether they are paid by fees or in some other manner, they do form an important part of the remuneration of the officers concerned. Although this perhaps may be a matter which is of lesser importance than the topics which the Committee has been discussing this afternoon, it is a matter of considerable importance to the officers concerned, and in these circumstances I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to meet us, if not by this Clause, by a Clause in some other form which will provide the compensation we are asking for these officers and treat them in the same manner as it has been the practice to treat officers whose remuneration was affected by circumstances over which they had no control in a great many other Bills in the past.

Mr. Burden: I rise to support the new Clause so well moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) and at this late hour, as the case has been so admirably put by him, I propose only to add a few words. The National Association of Local Government Officers is deeply disturbed at the lack of any compensation provisions in this Bill. It may be true that the position arises out of temporary conditions, but the fact remains that the loss to which the hon. and learned Member has referred is a continuing one. I hope that the Minister will agree—and this really is the essential of the case that I am submitting to the Committee—that the extremely valuable principle of compensation for loss of earnings, either wholly or in part in respect of earnings arising from legislative action in this House, is in no way going to be altered. It would be tedious to enumerate the Acts of Parliament which have been passed during the last 50 or 60 years where that principle has been maintained, and I would beg of the Minister to give us an assurance that he is in no way going to depart from that principle.
The House, for a long period of years, has safeguarded the interests of ordinary men and women when their livelihood was being worsened in any way by legislative action of this House. The Minister, perhaps, may find it difficult at present to accept this Clause. In any case, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he is fully seized of the importance of the principle which I have endeavoured to

enunciate. It may be that he cannot accept the new Clause now, but if that should be the position—I hope it is not and that he will be able to accept the new Clause—I would ask him whether he can give us a definite assurance that, when further legislation is forthcoming, he will put this matter on a proper and permanent basis, and that the case which we are endeavouring to put to the Committee will not be overlooked but will be very much in mind. I would appeal to the Minister to allay the anxieties of a very large number of men and women by either accepting the new Clause or giving us an adequate assurance.

The Lord Advocate: This is a most complex matter and we have examined it with every desire to do justice and with the firm principle embodied in all our minds that we are not to derogate in any way from the established principles of compensation. If we thought that the circumstances of this case came within the established principles, and if there was any precedent that covered this case, I think I can say on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we should have no hesitation in coming here as we have done before.
However, on our view of the facts this case is very clearly distinguishable from all others in which compensation has previously been given. Therefore, if we refuse here, we are not in the least prejudicing other cases which can be brought within the ordinarily understood principles. There seem to be two distinctions here from the ordinary case. There is a very complex history of designated officers and proper officers who come into the picture and go out again in a manner that is extremely difficult to understand, but the net result appears to be that nobody had any security of tenure with regard to this class of appointment before the war, because it is always open, without any infringement of the law or even, I think, of good faith, to change over from one officer to the other, and nobody had any ground of complaint if that was done. There was no established security of tenure in regard to any of these appointments—that is one distinction from the ordinary case.
The other distinction is, as my hon. Friend has properly said, that this is a temporary Bill; we do not know yet what will happen to these duties or these


officers at the end of this temporary Measure. If we revert, as we may, to the pre-war practices, then the question does not arise, because they get back their duties and their remuneration. If we put things upon some new permanent basis, then I agree that one of the distinctions that this is purely temporary goes by the board, and the thing will have to be reexamined to see whether the other distinction is by itself a valid reason for distinguishing this case from the general rule. However, these two distinctions together, appear in our view, to make it impossible for us to bring this case within the class of case where compensation has been given in the past, and for that reason we find it necessary to refuse the concession which is asked for in this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to superannuation rights of contributory employees.)

(1) Any contributory employee or local Act contributor who received in respect of work done by him in the standard year as returning officer at a local election, other than an election to fill a casual vacancy, or in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or jurors' book, remuneration, otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary continuing to be received by him, shall be entitled to contribute a sum in respect of that remuneration to the appropriate superannuation fund in respect of any year in which, by virtue of the Act of 1943 or of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof he is not required to do such or as much of such work; and for the purpose of computing in accordance with the provisions of Section eight of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, the average remuneration of any contributory employee or of calculating the superannuation allowance of any local Act contributor under a local Act scheme, he shall be deemed to have received in respect of service rendered in any year, in respect of which such contributions were made by him the remuneration by reference to which the contributions were calculated.
(2) A person otherwise entitled under Sub-section (1) of this Section to make contributions to a superannuation, fund in respect of any year shall not be so entitled if he receives in respect of work done in that year by him under the Act of 1943 or this Act (otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary) remuneration greater than that in respect of which he would be entitled to make the contributions.
(3) Where a person makes a contribution under the said Sub-section (1) in respect of any year he shall not be required or entitled to make, in respect of that year, any contribution under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937,

in respect of the remuneration received by him (otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary) in respect of work done by him in that year under the Act of 1943 or this Act and the said remuneration shall be disregarded for the purpose of computing, in accordance with the provisions of Section eight of either of the said Acts of 1937, his average remuneration (if he is a contributory employee) or of calculating his superannuation allowance under a local Act scheme (if he is a local Act contributor).
(4) In this Section the expressions "contributory employee," "local Act contributor," "local Act scheme" and "appropriate superannuation fund," have the same meanings, respectively, as in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, except that in relation to a local Act contributor the last mentioned expression means the superannuation fund in the benefits of which he is entitled to participate; and the expression "standard year" means, in relation to work done by any person as returning officer at a local election, the last year before the year nineteen hundred and forty in which such work was done by him, and, in relation to work done by any person in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or jurors' book, the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
(5) In the application of this Section to Scotland references to the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937, shall be substituted for references to the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937.—[Mr. G. Hutchinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), deals with a matter of a somewhat similar character to the Clause which I moved a moment ago. In this case the Clause is intended to safeguard the superannuation rights of certain local government officials who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill. This Clause really seeks to establish certain superannuation rights which were already established by the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1939 and the later Act of 1940. Now those provisions will be repealed by the present Bill, and this Clause will therefore be necessary in order to ensure that those officers whose superannuation rights were safeguarded by the earlier provision will, in fact, be safeguarded by this Bill. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend takes a more favourable view of this new Clause than he took of the last one; at least I hope he will take a more favourable view


of the principle which this Clause seeks to establish than he took of the principle which was raised by the last Clause.
In those circumstances I think that I need not dwell for long on the rather complicated details of this matter, but I ought to refer quite shortly to the fact that at the foot of page 44 there are two Amendments to Schedule 5 standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield. Both those Amendments are related to this Clause and it might, therefore, be a convenient course if we were to discuss them together. I do not think that will involve any further observations on my part, because the two matters are really knitted together, and in view of the attitude which I understand my right hon. and learned Friend finds himself able to take on this matter, I think I need say no more.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Burden: At this late hour I will only detain the Committee for a few moments. As the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) said, this is a very long complicated Clause dealing with what is perhaps a very complicated matter, but as it appears to me—I may be incorrect—unless a Clause similar to this is included in the Bill a number of local government officers who, by virtue of previous legislation, have under temporary war-time conditions continued to pay superannuation on their earnings in connection with registration work, will have paid superannuation for perhaps four or five years and on authority given by this House will be deprived not only of their superannuation on that extra amount when they reach superannuation age, but, in addition, will have lost the payments they had made, because there will be no return for the amount which they have paid in the shape of enhanced superannuation. I am sure the Minister and his advisors would not desire an anomaly, an injustice, of that kind, small as it may seem in connection with the big matters which we have been discussing, but big to the individual concerned, because when superannuation time comes every pound or so that a person receives is a matter of very real consideration to him. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfactory assurance in regard to this new Clause.

The Lord Advocate: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this new

Clause should be considered together with the two Amendments to Schedule 5 which stand in the names of my hon. Friends. My hon. and learned Friend is right in his surmise that the merits of this Clause commend themselves to the Government. We are satisfied, from an examination of this Clause and the facts known to us, that there would be certain inequalities if not inequities if we left matters as they stand at the moment. Therefore, we must do something, and we can properly do something within the ordinary rules. We do not very much like some of the drafting of this Clause, and we would prefer, if my hon. and learned Friend could see his way to do so, that the Clause should be withdrawn on the understanding that there will be introduced on Report Stage a Clause which I think will meet all the points, as we understand them, which this Clause is designed to meet. It will be somewhat differently drafted and will at the same time, if necessary, deal with the two Amendments to the Schedule. We are not at the moment convinced that anything has to be done there, but we will look into that again. With that assurance, that I think we can meet the whole of the point here, I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Clause.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for the statement just made, and in view of the assurances given that it will be considered and another Clause brought forward on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Business premises applications by service voters and by voters who are war workers abroad.)

Where a person is qualified to be registered in the business premises register but is a member of the forces, the merchant navy or is engaged on war work abroad, the necessary application to be placed on this register may be made on his behalf by his spouse, by the person in temporary charge of his business or by the person holding his power of attorney.—[Lieut.-Commander Hutchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I wish to ask a question on this Clause, the subject matter of which was discussed when the first of the new Clauses was moved on behalf of the Government by


the Home Secretary. At that time I put forward an argument in favour of having somebody in this country to represent the interests of the men who are absent on overseas service. I was rather disappointed at the reply I received from the Lord Advocate, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give me a firm assurance that the Government will look at this matter with sympathy, and see whether something can be done to meet the point I made when the Bill comes before the House again on the Report stage.

The Lord Advocate: I can certainly give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that we will look at this Clause with the greatest possible sympathy. The only thing that prevents us from moving is practical difficulties. We have not been able to devise something which would work satisfactorily, but if it is possible, perhaps with the assistance of my hon. and gallant Friend, to devise something we will do it, although I am not holding out any promise that that can be done.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the Lord Advocate's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment to Part I of Second Schedule to Act of 1918.)

For the purpose of any Parliamentary election initiated under this Act, Part I of the Second Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1918, shall be read and have effect as though in line 13 "thirty-seventh day" were substituted for "ninth day."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with an extension of time between nomination and polling day. On behalf of the Prime Minister a statement was made this morning which meets to some extent the point raised here, that is that His Majesty's Government are to give notice, as it were, of the date of the Proclamation, and that a further 21 days will be available as a warning that an election is to take place. But the point still remains—and I would like the Minister to consider this carefully, because it is important—that there ought to be some

extra time allowed between nomination and polling day. During this war, and especially in the conditions likely to exist when an Election takes place, the question of labour in printing offices, and for nearly all the activities otherwise connected with an Election, will be very difficult. What can be accomplished in the normal nine days will not be capable of solution in the circumstances in which we are now living. I suggest to the Minister that he considers the possibility, within the notice and counting of the votes, of an extension by some days of the time between nomination and polling day. If the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference on another subject are accepted the registration officer will not be responsible for sending out polling cards. Ballot papers, polling cards, and other documents cannot be printed until nominations are actually the fact, and I ask whether the Government have really inquired into the possibility of this printing work being done in the normal time set apart for the election? If an election takes place this year or next the labour position cannot possibly be normal and, therefore, I hope something will be done along these lines.
There is also this difficulty, that halls will not be available in the normal way. Many are still cluttered up with all kinds of Civil Defence apparatus, and it may be that candidates will not have the chance of meeting all their constituents in that short time. It is true that they may desert their duties in Parliament during the 21 days of which notice has to be given and rush off to their constituencies, but I do not think that that would be advisable. The election itself ought to be confined to this time. Another recommendation of the Speaker's Conference is to restrict severely the amount of money to be spent on the election and with the rise of printing costs, etc., the time for and possibility of electioneering will be severely restricted. That may make for difficulties in regard to printing and the hire of halls. It will not be possible to hire extravagant picture houses in the middle of an election, and pay those who run them for excluding their audiences. Therefore, it may be difficult to fit in an election in the normal way. I put this matter forward seriously on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think registration officers and those who are working in the election would welcome some extra days. It may


not be possible to give them exactly in the terms of this Amendment, but I would ask the Minister to give the matter serious consideration before this Bill becomes law.

Mr. Turton: I hope the Lord Advocate will not be taken in too much by the persuasive argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) who, I think, left out two very important factors. Do this Committee and people generally wish to have the business of the country dislocated for a longer period than the nine days allowed under the present law? The next election will take place at a very vital time when we are changing from the war against Germany to the war against Japan, and I think to extend the period between nomination and polling day would not be in the interests of the business of the country or the general welfare of the community. Further, and more important, I think it will be of interest to everybody in the Committee to keep down election expenses, to enable people without means, especially those who have served their country in this war, to stand for Parliament. If we add to the period within which money can be spent it will make it more difficult for the man without means to stand for Parliament.

7.0 p.m.

I think it would be a great disservice to the country if, when the Speaker's Conference recommended that election expenses should be cut down, we approved of a proposal which would add to the financial burden placed on every candidate. If you have a period between nomination and polling day of 30 days it is quite impossible in the average constituency, especially in rural constituencies, to keep within the prescribed limit of expenditure. I hope the Government will not entertain the suggestion which has been so persuasively put forward.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am inclined to agree that 30 days is rather too long, but I think my hon. Friend suggested that some shorter period might be considered. It is true that various committees have considered this, and registration officers to whom I have spoken are very much in favour of some addition to the number of days in order to give time to get printing done and for other purposes ancillary to a General Election. One point which was not made by my hon. Friend is that the

additional number of days could be taken from the 21 which we are going to get in any case. It would not lengthen the election, but it would give more elbow room for registration officers and candidates than they will have under these proposals. A further argument in its favour is that possibly many candidates in the Forces who will fight the next election will be some distance from this country when the election comes and it would be unfair to them if the period is not as long as it should be in order to give them time to get home. I hope the Solicitor-General will look at this in a favourable light and see if something cannot be done to extend the period in view of all the difficulties that are likely to face us when the election comes.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I think the arguments which have been put forward in favour of the new Clause are perfectly sound and I agree with them. I do not think that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made out his case that a longer election favours the rich man as against the poor. I know there is a longer time in which to spend money, but it seems to me that a person who is relying mainly on voluntary help, a person of limited resources, can make a better showing in a little longer time than one who is relying mainly on money and can make a big splash in a very short time. But my main reason for wishing to see an extension of time is to prevent a rush and a snap election such as took place in 1918. I have always regarded the seven and a half weeks' period as a very great safeguard to prevent an election taking place on some false issue arising after an armistice. While I welcome the statement that has been made by the Deputy Prime Minister, I see no reason why this should not be incorporated in the Bill. If we had a longer period it would be a safeguard against a snap election.

Mr. Woodburn: May I put a point to clear up a misunderstanding which, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has? The argument now is not to extend in any way the time when people know there will be an election. We have been told there will be a three weeks' warning. The only point is whether within that three weeks we are going to vary the date of nomination. We are not suggesting that there should be any lengthening of


that period. The 21 days can be reduced to 14 or 17, or whatever may be possible, but a few extra days may make all the difference between success and failure in regard to printing and other practical work that has to be done.

The Solicitor-General: As I understood my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) there are really two points. One is whether there is sufficient time for electioneering, and the second is whether there is sufficient time for printing and the actual mechanics of preparation. With regard to the first point, I do not see how there can be any difficulty about starting the campaign if a person wants to do it. The practice is that after the notice of the proclamation for Dissolution, which has to be 21 days, there has usually been a period of Prorogation before the actual Dissolution date. I only heard the statement read by the Deputy Prime Minister, and I cannot be sure without reference to it whether that period of Prorogation could possibly take up part of the 21 days. I should not like to say without verifying it from the statement, but it does meet my hon. Friend's point because he was afraid of people being kept at their duties in this House up to the last minute. If there is a period of Prorogation they will not have to do that, and, if they like, they can start their election campaigns. That is really what was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), because he was afraid that the period might be too long and too expensive for those with short purses. As I understand the position, postulating that period of Prorogation, it will be a matter of choice, and whether nomination day has come or gone will not prevent anyone starting his campaign if he wants to do it. We will certainly bear the second point in mind. I am sure everyone in all quarters of the Committee will want to make this Bill succeed, and we shall do our utmost to consult, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, all sections of the printing industry to see that we have allowed enough time. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall bear that point in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: With that assurance in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Registration as local government elector.)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 28, line 36, leave out from "register," to "unless," in line 37.
I do not see the need for individual ratepayers having to write to the registration officer in order to get their names entered on the ratepayers register. That procedure is cumbersome and will merely lead to a lot of superfluous correspondence. As the names of the ratepayers are already entered upon the valuation rolls which have to be kept up to date in order that local rates can be levied on owners, it should be simple for a registration officer to compile a list of those ratepayers on his own without having to get the ratepayers to apply individually. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid that the Amendment is impracticable. To begin with it would not apply at all in England. It could apply only in Scotland, but that is not an adequate reason for not applying it in Scotland if it would work there; but it would not. The position of the ratepayers register is that you are only entitled to go on it if you are an owner or occupier of property, that is, a ratepayer, but are not residing in that electoral district. For example, if you are an owner or occupier of property in street A and you are residing round the corner in street B, both streets being in the same electoral district, you do not get on to the ratepayers register at all but only if your residence is somewhere else.
If we adopted the plan proposed, we should put the registration officer in a difficult position. He would find that John Smith was either owner or occupier of a particular house and that he was not living there, and therefore did not have a residence qualification in respect of that property. The officer would not have the slightest idea whether John Smith was living in that electoral district or not. There are so many John Smiths that it is not a bit of good searching the list of voters to see where John Smith is, because you cannot tell where which John Smith you are looking for Therefore, without further inquiry and a very extensive canvass you could not decide whether a non-


resident ratepayer was entitled to go on the ratepayers register or not. Looking to the great difficulty of fitting even the existing programme into the time-table and in view also of man-power difficulties it is impossible to put upon any public official the large amount of extra work that would be involved if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Woodburn: The officer would not find the age on the register either.

The Lord Advocate: No. You would never be able to identify the person and would have to go canvassing around trying to discover what you could. Although the Amendment appears all right on the face of it, I am afraid that it is impracticable.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I recognise that there are certain mechanical difficulties in the way of this Amendment which were not at first apparent. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 34, line 41, at end, add:


8 &amp; 9 Geo. 6, c. 3.
The Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944.
The whole Act.


This additional repeal is necessary because the Local Elections Act, 1944, had not become law at the time of the introduction of the Bill. The passing of that Act makes it necessary to put these words into the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Leek, a

copy of which Order was presented on 16th January, be approved."—[Mr. Mathers.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — POLICE CONSTABLE, KEIGHLEY (WIDOW'S PENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I apologise to the House for pursuing this matter at such a late hour, but there are legal and personal reasons why I must do so. It is a constituency matter, but it raises the general question of the State as an employer. Police Constable Joseph Victor Plant was a member of the West Riding Force at the Keighley Station, and in February, 1943, he was required to take part in a drill. As a result of that drill, which was unusually severe in my submission, he contracted heart disease, from which he subsequently died. These facts are not contested by the police authorities, and I think I can best show that by reading a medical certificate given by the Staff Surgeon to the West Riding Constabulary, Mr. Thomas Walker, on 5th August, 1943. He stated:
I beg to report that I have to-day examined P.C. Plant at Harrogate and find him to be suffering from myocarditis, and he is unfit for Police duty. In my opinion the immediate cause of the myocarditis was the drill parade in February last, which caused severe exertion and so the heart failure. Disability 100 per cent.
I ought to state at this point that two constables had to drop out of this parade; they could not complete it. It was supervised by a former warrant officer from one of the Guards regiments, and although I have no doubt that the exercise would have been well within the capacity of young Guardsmen, it was altogether beyond what should have been required from members of the police force, particularly those over the age of 50, as Police Constable Plant was. The next consequence was a letter from the Chief Constable of the West Riding, directing that constables and auxiliaries over the age of 45 years should be excused from drill parades. I mention these facts only to show that the police authority clearly accept full responsibility for the fact that


Police Constable Plant did die of heart trouble, contracted in this unusually severe drill.
I am informed that the drill consisted of marching in double time for five or seven minutes. Although that may not, on the surface, appear severe, it does in fact amount, even for men of 50, to running for something like a mile. I submit that that is more than should have been required from such persons. Whether that be so or not this man had in the first instance to retire from the force, and subsequently he died from his heart trouble.
The question of pension then arose. He was awarded on retirement an ordinary pension at the accidental rate, under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, but after his death the award was revised to a special pension at the accidental rate. The Act provides for two classes of pension, ordinary and special; and special pensions may be at accidental rates or at non-accidental rates. When the police constable died, his widow became entitled to a pension. It is my contention that she should have been awarded a widow's special pension, but in fact she has been awarded only a widow's ordinary pension. The difference that that makes in practice is that she now receives a pension of 50s. per month, whereas she would have received a pension equal to one-third of her husband's pay at the time of his retirement. This lady, deprived of her husband through injury received in the execution of his duty, is in need. She had two sons in the Royal Air Force. One of them was killed in operations; the other is still alive. She is a good example of the way in which the ordinary citizen of this country can get caught up in meshes of red tape. These lads were not contributing to the household before they joined up, because they were not wage-earners. Therefore, she does not qualify either for a parent's pension or for a war service grant in respect of her sons, and she is, therefore, in need.
I believe that the police authority would willingly have granted a special pension to this lady if they had felt that they had power under the Police Pensions Act to do so, but the police authority, and I imagine the Home Office, take the view that they have not the power. But this presupposes a view of the Act so contrary

to logic and to the normal usages of English that I feel bound to raise it here. I must quote the relevant portions of the Act of 1921. The first quotation is from Section 3, paragraph (b):
Where in any case a member of a police force dies whilst serving in the force from the effects of an injury received in the execution of his duty without his own default, or having been granted a pension, in respect of any such injury, dies from the effects of such injury, his widow shall be entitled, where the injury was accidental to a widow's ordinary pension, and where the injury was non-accidental to a widow's special pension.
It is necessary for me to show that the injury from which the police constable died was non-accidental. I should have thought, on any ordinary English usage, that when a man dies as the result of drill which he is required to attend, his death is certainly not accidental. The police authority and the Home Office, however, rely on Section 33 (3), of the Act of 1921, which says:
Any injury intentionally inflicted, or incurred in the performance of a duty involving special risks, shall be deemed to be a non-accidental injury.
and they urge that the drill was not a duty involving special risks. I would be prepared, if necessary, to argue that such a drill, for a man of such an age, did involve special risks for him. Clearly, to ask a man of over 50 to run a mile, as, in fact, he was required, is to subject him to a special risk, but that is not the argument I wish to use, for it seems clear to me that the interpretation of the Home Office runs completely contrary to logic.
What this Sub-section clearly says is that any injury incurred in the performance of a duty involving special risk shall be deemed to be a non-accidental injury. It does not say that all non-accidental injuries shall be defined as being injuries intentionally inflicted or incurred in the performance of a duty involving special risks. I could illustrate it perhaps by an example. It would be equivalent to saying that, because all Ministers are cautious men, therefore all cautious men are Ministers, which would clearly not be true. What this Sub-section does is to tell us that certain injuries shall be treated as non-accidental, but it does not define what a non-accidental injury is, and nowhere in the Act is there a definition of a non-accidental injury. We have, therefore, I submit, to rely on the ordinary usage of English, helped by the standard dictionaries. I have looked them up and


I see no reason to change the view which I came to at once, that the police constable's death was, in fact, non-accidental, and that, therefore, his widow is clearly entitled, within the Act, to a widow's special pension.
What I would like to know is what reasons the Government have for taking this view, It is quite clear to me that the lady is entitled to such a pension within the Act, and I would like to know whether the Government have submitted this matter to the Lord Chancellor's Department, or to the Law Officers of the Crown to get their opinion. I have no doubt that I shall be told that this may be quite a cogent case, but, if the lady is not satisfied with the award, under Section 17 of the Act of 1921, she may appeal to Quarter Sessions. Well, that is indeed so, but why has that course not been taken and why am I raising this in the House instead? The first question is, frankly, one of expense. This lady, as I explained, is in very straitened circumstances as the result of the death of her husband and, now, of a son, and, like so many other people, does not want to contemplate what, even on a minimum calculation, must cost £10.
I would like to say that the colleagues of the late police constable in the Force are very anxious to help Mrs. Plant over this difficulty, and they were not allowed to do so until quite recently. I think that that is a little scandalous and if my taking up this matter in the House of Commons has had this good result, it has at least done something already. At least they are now permitted to make a collection to meet legal expenses if necessary. The second reason for not taking the matter in the first instance to Quarter Sessions is the uncertainty of the law. We all know that great risks are involved, even when a case is absolutely clear, in going to law; and the third reason, and the one which is strongest with me, is, Why should this matter be taken to the court? The meaning of the Act is absolutely plain.
I would put this to my hon. Friend who is to reply to my speech. The Act of 1921 gives power to grant a widow special pension to this lady. It is not disputed that her husband died as a result of a compulsory parade and by inference from the Chief Constable's letter which I have mentioned, it is admitted that the

parade was undoubtedly severe. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to announce, if he can, that such a pension will be given, or at any rate, as it is for the police authority and not for the Government to award a pension, that they will not give an interpretation of the Act which seems contrary to logic, to English usage, and to humanity.

7.32 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): I think my hon. Friend understands that I am taking this matter on behalf of the Home Office, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, unfortunately, is still away ill, and I thank him for his courtesy in agreeing to that arrangement. This is a sad case and I am not going to dispute the facts which have been very reasonably recited by my hon. Friend. I would like to come straight to the point, and in doing that I must make one or two remarks. As things stand, and as my hon. Friend has said, Mrs. Plant has been awarded an ordinary pension and he thinks that she should have a special pension, and that really is the whole crux of the matter. As he has already said, awards are made under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and the Standing Joint Committee of the West Riding have taken the view that, whether they would like it or whether they would not, they cannot, under the Statute, award Mrs. Plant a special pension.
My hon. Friend realises that my right hon. Friend has no power to direct the Standing Joint Committee one way or another. The interpretation of the Act in this case is a matter which is their responsibility. But he says, "The Home Secretary can give advice." It is true that from time time the Home Office sends circulars of advice to Police authorities as to the practice and procedure to be taken under this Act, but here you have an individual case surrounded by particular circumstances. No such circulars have been or, I think, can be issued to cover cases of this sort, each of them with a very different history. For reasons which will be apparent in a moment, it would be improper for me on the Floor of this House to follow my hon. Friend in the remarks he made about arguing the case for the interpretation of the Act. When we get into a position of this sort, as he himself said, the Act itself provides the remedy under Section 17.
Mrs. Plant under that Section has the right of appeal, as he knows, against the decision of the Standing Joint Committee to the next practicable Quarter Sessions, and I must say it seems to me that that is the proper course which should be taken. The Act has expressly provided for cases of this sort where there is a difference of opinion upon its interpretation but, as he has mentioned and as I understand, there may have been some hesitation and I can well believe it, on the grounds of cost. Neither the Standing Joint Committee nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish that to be a bar to Mrs. Plant exercising the rights which she has, and my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that he and the responsible police authority, with whom he has been in consultation on the point, are quite sure that means can be found of overcoming this difficulty. He has authorised me to say that.
That being so, I think I must leave it to my hon. Friend to try to see what he can do in that direction, but I would like to add that I hope he does not feel that either the Home Secretary or the Standing Joint Committee are unsympathetic in this case. Quite the reverse is the truth, as I have found in my discussions with the Department before coming down here, but they felt them-

selves quite honestly precluded from giving her a special pension under the interpretation of the Act which they have felt bound to reach and, of course, they have their responsibilities for being scrupulous in the administration of public funds. I think that if this procedure is followed, and Mrs. Plant is now enabled to exercise the appeal to which she is entitled, my hon. Friend will perhaps agree that we can all feel that she, whatever the result may be, will have had a fair deal, and I hope he will feel that perhaps his time has not altogether been wasted by raising the matter in the House.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: If, with the leave of the House, I may add a few sentences, I would like to echo what my hon. Friend has said, that in this matter I found the police authority and the Home Secretary most sympathetic, and that it is simply the view that they were precluded by the Act which has prevented them from doing this. I thank my hon. Friend very much for the generous promise he has given on behalf of the Home Secretary, and I will advise Mrs. Plant to exercise her legal rights.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes before Eight o'Clock.